Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19950516 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 16, 1995 Chairman Bruce Kerr called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. Present at the meeting were Steve Buettow, Marta Chaikovska, Robert Blaich, Tim Mooney, Sara Garton, Roger Hunt, Jasmine Tygre, and Bruce Kerr. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Blaich stated someone is taking his meeting packets out of his mailbox before the meetings, and therefore, he cannot read the information before attending. It was agreed that Kathryn Koch would be notified regarding the matter. Garton stated, at 204 E. Durant, where the fire is, could the owner clean it up? Lamont said, I think the owner is working on a demolition project. (Public) stated, that's my client, Sara, and we have been working on that. We have really expected to have it demolished by now, but the person in charge of demolition has been delayed because of the weather. I am trying to do what I can to expedite the demolition and, hopefully, we can start it by the end of the week. STAFF COMMENTS Leslie Lamont of Community Development said, your first meeting in July was July 4th, and staff switched it to July 5. Kerr stated he could not meet on Wednesdays. Lamont suggested July llth, and that date was agreed upon by the Commission and staff. Lamont stated that Governor Romer has started a Smart Growth Discussion Initiative in the State, and Council members and staff people, and just anybody in the State is welcome to attend these meetings. She said, we had a regional meeting April 26th in Vail, and at that meeting we pooled together everyone who was from the Roaring Fork Valley and started talking about regional issues. Out of that, we set another meeting. Right now we are using the Roaring Fork Forum and the Rocky Mountain Communities to help us sponsor these meetings. So, I have some handouts for you, and the meeting is Saturday, Hay 20th, from 9:00 a.m. until noon, and will be held at the Colorado Rocky Hountain School in their multi- purpose auditorium. She said, I encourage you all to attend, because this may be pretty informative. PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION MAY 16, 1995 PUBLIC COP~ENTS There were none. MINUTES FEBRUARY 21, MARCH 21, & MAY 2, 1995 Hunt moved to adopt the minutes of 21 February, 21 March and 2 May, 1995. Tygre seconded, vote was unanimous in favor, motion carried. MOTION Hunt moved to continue the Independence Place SPA Designation & Conceptual SPA Plan to 18 July 1995. Hunt amended his motion to include, continued public hearing to that date. Chaikovska seconded. Tygre asked, the fact that we are extending the 1992 GMQS Lodge Allocation for Bell Mountain, how does that affect any new applications for lodge allotments, or does it? Lamont stated, it doesn't because we rarely pull forward lodge allocations that have not been used. These are considered used and the Bell Mountain Lodge application won from 1992 and it also won units from 1993, I believe. Those are used up. Voting commenced, unanimous in favor, motion carried. MOTION Hunt moved to continue the public hearing and table the Aspen School District Text Amendments to 20 June 1995 and to continue the public hearing and table action on Mocklin Subdivision, Special Review, Rezoning & GMQS Exemption to 6 June 1995. Tygre seconded. Garton asked what kind of text amendments is the district looking at. Stan Clauson answered, it is a text amendment that would allow for receipt of funds in lieu of land donations, so it would be, in affect, a school impact fee; school impact fees based on the present state statuate which allows for the receipt of land or cash-in-lieu of land. Voting commenced, vote was unanimous in favor, motion carried. PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION ~4AY 16, 1995 Kerr stated he would like to move the Sale Sign Text Amendment before Residential Design Standards Text Amendments on the agenda if it was alright with the rest of the Commission and staff. SALE SIGN TEXT AMENDHENT Kerr opened the public hearing. Stan Clauson represented for staff and stated, the memorandum prepared by Klm Johnson; the genesis of this was a comment from Boogies that they felt that they were being too constrained in their ability to advertise sales. The entire period at the end of the ski season is really a sale period, and the two-week provision that presently exists with the present ordinance is non-sufficient. Clauson said that Bill Drueding reports that in his inforcement, there are many, rather discreet, sale signs that are up for longer than two week periods, but as no complaints are received, he has felt constrained not to enforce these very small signs that are at various ski shop windows at the end of the season. In general, the retailers do have end of season sales, particularly, at the end of the ski season, and we feel that this is an accommodation of that. This does not change the restrictions on the type and number of the signs, and it provides that they may not have their two week period continuous and flowing into this end of season sale. We brought this before the Commercial Core and Lodging Commission, which reviewed the remnant, and they endorsed it as an appropriate liberalization. We have received only one public comment from the owner of Pitkin County Dry Goods, suggesting that we might consider the end of the summer season as being an equivalent extended sale period. Staff, at this point, feels that while that may be true, it might be appropriate to go with one extended sale period and see how that is received by the public. Tygre asked, how did they arrived at the period Harch 1-April 157 Clauson answered, this was based on Bill Drueding's perception of when the ski shops generally like to begin to advertise their end of the season sales, and some of the other retailers, as well. I suppose there is some elasticity to that period, you might say it should be Harch 15-April 15 or others, but this seemed to us to be the maximum period that seemed to coincide with the desire to have season sales. Hunt stated, I am a little concerned about the length of the 46 days, it is quite a few days to deal with sale signs all over the PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION 5~AY 16, 1995 place; I'm not saying it isn't happening now, the difference is, at least in some cases, it is a little more toned down than what it could be just opening the door the way it is. I really don't know yet, but it seems to be a longer period than I think is necessary. Kerr asked, the size of the sign, does it really mean 3 square feet or 3 feet square? Clauson answered, 3 square feet, which is any dimension totaling 3 square feet. It is not a very large sign, and that is intentional in the ordinance to tone down the size of those special sale signs. Kerr asked for public comments. There were none, and Kerr closed the public hearing. MOTION Garton moved to recommend to Council approval of an amendment to the Aspen Land Use Regulations to revise the temporary sale sign section as presented in this memorandum, and based on the review criteria listed in the memorandum. Blaich seconded. Discussion of Hotion Tygre said, in relating to my earlier question; I really have doubts about the wisdom of having end of season sale signs in shop windows between Harch 1 and Harch 15, which are two of the busiest winter season weeks. I would not have a problem if the period started after Harch 15, but I think including those first two weeks in Harch in there, is really not a good idea. And for that reason, I am going to vote against the motion. Clauson said, Hr. Chairman, staff doesn't have any particular investment in this set of dates, so the motion can be amended to accommodate the Commission. Tygre stated, I may be the only person to feel this way. Hunt said he felt precisely the same. Garton stated, I don't feel this way. Since in reality, most of the stores go on sale Harch 1st, they may as well put up a sign. I worked in retail for a long time. Vote commenced, vote was 5 in favor, two opposed (Tygre and Hunt), motion carried. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 16, 1995 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS TEXT AMENDMENTS Kerr opened the public hearing. Residential Design Standards Text Amendments is continued from Hay 9, 1995. Clauson stated, Hr. Chairman, one of the things we wanted to provide you with was information on the amount of process which took place after the point of the initial public hearing. We think there was a substantial amount of public input, and that may not have been reflected in our initial presentation. Leslie Lamont has prepared some materials to indicate what was done from the point in which Ordinance 35 was passed. Lamont presented and used view overheads. She stated, the interim ordinance was adopted in mid-August, but the dialog started in Hay with the HPC, and then we held several work sessions with HPC and P&Z the month of June. We had a publicly-noticed worksession the end of June, and then had a worksession with City Council the beginning of July. We had our formal public hearing with the P&Z the end of July, and the Council then adopted the interim ordinance the middle of August. At that point and time, what we were talking about was a pretty strong recommendation to reduce the allowable floor area ratios throughout the City. There was talk about whether it should be river to river, mountain to mountain, or if it should include the entire City. I believe we were also using the neighboring character guidelines and we were talking about using those guidelines on a mandatory basis, at some point, and that is how we arrived at our interim process, reducing the allowable floor area by 15% and using the guidelines either on a mandatory or voluntary basis, depending upon the size of the parcel. So, when the Council adopted the interim overlay of Ordinance 35 in August, they also recommended that we start working with the community in a more in-depth level. One of the products of that was our Aspen Design Symposium. We held that on October 3rd and 4th, and we brought in quite a few architects and designers from around the country and one of them was Dan Solomon, who has done a lot of work with design guidelines; using those at an administrative level instead of really going in and really changing the code, or reducing the floor area ratios, that was his main thrust. Out of that, we then hired Mr. Solomon. After our Design Symposium, city staff and the planning department started working with the County staff and started talking about the County code, the UBC, and the City code. We tried to see if we PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION 5~AY 16, 1995 could pull all the different ways that things are measured in this county together, so it would make it a little bit easier on people. The Historic Preservation people also started working on the Design Guidelines that we were using and tried to take a lot of the subjectivity out of the design guidelines. That was one of the criticisms we got in July and August, was that they were really subjective and it really depended on who was sitting on the Board at the time, what they would want to see, and what they would approve and deny. So, a small group of HPC members had a couple of brown-bag meetings and started working on the design guidelines. That happened in November and December, and then in January, we had a worksession with City Council; we invited P&Z to that worksession, the HPC, and also invited people on our mailing list from the Design Symposium to come to that. At that point, we were recommending that, for example, the entire below grade space would count in the floor area, which is similar to the county. We put forth our suggestion to eliminate the bonus of garages, and we also had these revised design guidelines that the HPC members had been working on. She said, Council seemed to acknowledge and support the code changes that we were recommending, but felt that the design guidelines and the use of the design guidelines on a mandatory basis, were still too subjective. The rest of the dates, Feb. 7, 13, and Harch 13, we were holding afternoon meetings with people to try and come up with some ideas that would be palatable to both the design community and real estate community. One thing that we realized is, that the architects did not want staff, the zoning code, P&Z and HPC, or some other board, telling them how to design and how to be creative. Several architects said we don't care what the floor areas are, tell us what the rules are, but let us be creative within the rules. The real estate and development communities, on the other hand, was saying, don't put anymore rules on us, don't restrict our FAR any further, don't change the rules on us, but if you give us a process to go through, i.e., our Design Review Board, we can live with that because we know we have something to work with. Lamont stated, we then, officically, brought on Dan Solomon to help us with the design guidelines and try and blend the two areas of thinking. At the end of March, Kevin, Amy and I, and other people who have been following this process quite regularly, held neighborhood "teas". In some instances we went to the neighborhoods; Truscott Place, Cemetery Lane, Snowbunny, areas for neighborhood "tea". We broke up the City of Aspen into several PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION 5~AY 16, 1995 different neighborhoods and we put advertisements in the paper and tried to call people who were already on our mailing list for previous work, to let them know about these neighborhood teas. Dan Solomon's assistant, Kevin Powell, and staff, would sit with people from these neighborhoods and ask them did they think that development was happening in an uncharacteristic manner in the way it worked or what issues they had. Usually, these meetings went for about two hours, and as new people came to these "teas" we added them to our mailing list. We got a lot of good constructive criticism and feedback, but we also got a lot of positive feedback on where these recommendations were starting to go, and the design latitude that was being incorporated into these recommendations. That was where we talked about administrative checklists and not reducing FARs, but re-thinking how we calculated FARs and what we charged. We then took Dan Solomon's recommendations and asked five local architects to perform case studies. They took the recommendations and we gave them parcels in the R6 and R15 zone, and we asked them to design buildings based upon today's code, the code reduced at 15%, down to 85%, and then Dan Solomon's recommendations. What we asked them to do on all three occasions was try and break the rules; try and show us what these recommendations really mean, can you deviate and in what manner can you deviate. The missing link in those case studies was the client. The client was not there pushing their own agenda, and so, in some instances, we had sympathetic design and architecture because we had support around the recommendations. We then all came back together and critiqued each case study that the architects had done and we videotaped that, and sent the videotape to Dan Solomon, along with our notes that we took. Then, Dan and Kevin, in speakerphone conversations with us, and in viewing the video and our notes, then created the second draft which are pretty much the recommendations that we have put forth to you. We continued to fine-tune them after that and then using our mailing list, we then, sent out a letter to everybody telling them this formal adoption process. By the way, we have a worksession scheduled with City Council for Hay 23rd, that Tuesday night following the first reading at Council; a worksession that Council wants to have just on this and on these recommendations. Everybody is invited, and that is what we have been doing since August. I included this in my memorandum last Tuesday, your Hay 9th memorandum. After our Design Symposium, Stan did an Overview Hemorandum for Council and general distribution; what did we get out of the Design Symposium, what did we hear, and at the last day PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION 5~AY 16, 1995 of the Design Symposium several concensus statements came out, and I included these in your memorandum. In the memorandum, I failed to summarize for you, these Design Symposium Concensus statements and then show you how the work that we have done and what we are recommending to you, how they fit with these Design Symposium statements. Stan Clauson said, Leslie, I don't want to disrupt too much the flow of what you are presenting, but there is a conflict today because there are historic preservation awards being given and I am wondering if there are any people here who want to make a statement for the public record that feel they need to go on to the 5:15 p.m. awards. Kerr asked if there was anyone in that situation that would like to make a public comment. Les Holson, of HPC, stated, it is not a perfect document, but I think it is something that is necessary at this time. I have been on HPC now for 6 years for the same reasons; we are trying to preserve the communitiy as best as we can. This document has been a long time coming and you need tools and we need tools, even if they are imperfect, if we can get this passed and work with this as we go into the future. We can tune this and make it better for everybody. Host of the developers are in Aspen, not because they love us, but because we are easy. The HPC here doesn't have the tools they need, and I don't think you totally have all the tools you need. Lamont proceeded saying, and this mailing list I have been talking about, (this is our mailing list); I put checks next to the names that I thought indicated the diversity of people that we have included in this process. We have developers, appraisers, architects, people who were interested because it was their neighborhood, and landscaping architects. Next, I have prepared a list of comments we got last week, and we thought we would put it up and talk from this and go into the changes that we are proposing since last Tuesday, and use this to talk about why some changes have not been made, and start a discussion. Stan Clauson stated, I have prepared a memorandum for the Planning & Zoning Commission which attempted to do the following things. First of all, summarize the alternatives that Leslie had presented in her initial memorandum to the P&Z and concluded that it appeared that we were ready to press ahead with at least a further look at this combination of residential design standards. Nonetheless, the PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 16, 1995 other combinations and ideas represent alternatives that we might alternately consider. The memorandum goes on to deal with two key issues that were raised at the last public hearing and those were; the calculation of the garage and the linking of the R15B Zone District. The question of what districts and neighborhoods, what kind of development areas should be included, under these conditions. With respect to the R15B, and the areas to be included, it seemed to me that we had three choices; one, would be to include the whole City, another would be to include those districts which had the greatest potential for floor area ratio development. The R15B area stands out as an area where development density was reduced really when they came into the City by annexation, so that is possibly an area that might be excluded or to include only river-to river or the rectilinear townside street of old Aspen within these provisions. Staff's recommendation, in this regard, is that we exclude the R15B District for two reasons; one, it does have a reduction in FAR, and two, their neighborhoods do have internal design review activities. Perhaps we leave it as kind of laboratory to see which does better, and whether there are, in fact, various strategies that might be used in different neighborhoods. I think our public meetings attest to this; we have heard from a number of the areas outside of the west end and east Aspen that they are concerned about inappropriate development, un- neighborly development, and they would like to have some provisions that can force some additional protection. These are neighborhoods with curvilinear streets and we feel that these provisions are equally applicable there. Clauson said, the other key issue was the modification to the free allowance for garages. As you know, initially, right now we have 500 square foot exemption. One of the recommendations coming out of the Design Symposium was to review the affect of the automobile on the way our City looks and see if we can determine if there are some inappropriate development decisions that are being made. Clauson stated that Leslie noted that the proposed reduction in the parking requirement from 1 car per bedroom to 2 spaces per unit; I would have also included under that some kind of reduction or charge against the garage allowance, as well. The point was made that people want two-car garages, that is the "norm". Nothing in this provision prevents someone from having a two-car garage, the charge against a 500 square foot, two-car garage is less than 100 square feet. What it means is, that on a tight site, the person that wants to have their own home there, will make a design decision; do they want want to put that FAR into additional garage PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION 5~AY 16, 1995 development or do they want to put it into a livingroom. They have, basically, a garage and the opportunity to have a parking space, and if they want more, that is available to them. Staff believes this is a useful, but not the ultimate useful, provisional list and if it is too complex, and too controversial, the Commission may recommend it go away, as an issue, right now. I think that a revision to a 250 square foot exemption would engender more appropriate decisions about how FAR is spent, particularly on small sites. On the other hand, we have adjusted the FAR cost or accrual over and above 250 square feet. It was initially proposed by the consultant at .25, and then, up to a limit of 600 square feet. It was staff's feeling that that could engender larger garages on certain sites and maybe we were a little too restrictive in that respect. In re-thinking that, we have flipped it somewhat, to say, let's consider a .25 accrual over 250 square feet, but instead of a 600 square foot limit, go back to the 500 square foot limit, and over 500 square feet you would then be charged at a one- to-one ratio for every additional square foot garage. Clauson stated, there were a variety of other issues raised at the public hearing that really required clarification with respect to specific provisions and to the process. A couple of these were reflected in the terms "plate height" for basements, and the correct term should be "floor height". It is a question of 18 inches above grade to the floor of the first floor elevation, and "plate height" introduced a confusion there. With respect to the areawell exception for height, another question that came up and the basic thrust there was, if you have an enclosed lightwell, areawell, or stairwell, and it is fully enclosed on four sides; it is not a cut into the grade approaching the structure, then that, up to 100 square feet does not count, it is excluded. Clauson said, the linking element or pavilion was a question that you raised, Bruce, and that would be an arcade or a breezeway. The intent there is to encourage some greater separation of the garage structure, the ADU structure, from the main building because that inherently, reduces bulk and mass. If a small linking element enhances that encouragement, then our consultants felt that would be a good thing to do; so that linking element is free of FAR. With respect to height, there were some problems with the drafting of that initial height statement, and I have a proposed re-draft of that; I'm sorry to introduce it at such a late hour, but I will pass it out and go over it. I think the way that height has been approached here is really to increase the design latitude. Hajor 10 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION 5~AY 16, 1995 architects have come and complained that our method of measuring height really forces a squatter roof-line over the second floor, given the design only has a second floor living area. We have divided what was a somewhat unified approach to height into three roof types: a flat roof up to a pitch of 3:12, a roof with slope of from 3:12 to 7:12, and rather steep sloping roofs, 8:12 and greater. Each one has a somewhat different approach to height; this is not a simplification of the ordinance, but it is an attempt to deal with the different kinds of design considerations that arise from drawings that architects may come up with, both in responding to compatibility of the building on the site and to whatever the client's program is. Clauson said, I will go over this quickly, in the hope that we have got it all here, and I am sure someone will point it out, if we don't. For flat roofs or roofs with a slope of less than 3:12, we are simply going to measure the top of the roof against the flat roof at the ridge line, and that height is specified in each zoning disrict. For roofs with a slope from 3:12 to 7:12, we measure to the mean height of the slope, between the eaves and the ridgeline of a gable, hip, gambrel, or similar pitched roof. The ridge above that, cannot extend over 5 feet above the maximum height limit. With the very steep sloped roof, we allow more latitude. The height is measured to a point one-third the way up the distance from the eaves to the ridge, and then, there is no limit on the height to the ridge. In this particular case, chimneys and other appurtenances may not extend beyond two feet above the ridge. Clauson stated, in provision number 4, for chimneys, antennas, and other appurtenances, it says that they will not go over ten feet above the specified maximum height, except for the 8:12, where it can only be two feet above the ridge. Hunt said, I see a unit of "no man's land" between 7:12 and 8:12, so shouldn't ~3 read, "roofs of slopes greater than 7:12". In other words, what do you do with the 7-1/2:12 roof? Clauson acknowledged. Clauson and Lamont presented a height diagram. Clauson stated, the other points that were brought up were the natural or finished grade, and we feel that using the term alternately, natural or finished grade, will prevent any inappropriate cutting of the grade in order to establish an unrealistic height measure. That alternating, natural or finished grade, is typical of zoning ordinances, generally, and I think it provides a clarification that will be useful for us in doing our measurements. 11 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION 5~AY 16, 1995 Finally, a very good point was brought up about trees and their relationship to dimensional and checklist requirements, and landscaping in general, and why it wasn't included. I guess, the answer to that is, that you can only do so much, and though we would very much like to work on an additional approach that would include landscaping, it is not yet with us. Clauson said, I guess the question is, what happens when trees intervene in some way that causes you to do something else with the building in order to preserve landscaping and puts you into some violation of some design standard. That is the prime consideration why someone would want to go to the Design Standard Appeals Committee and have the opportunity to present a case, that there is some significant landscaping here that causes the need for a change in the way that the building is configured, and so, that opportunity to present a case is going to be available. Perhaps we should specify in the ordinance that landscaping is the preservation of existing vegetation, and an important reason why somebody would want to avail themselves to a Committee Review. Lamont stated, in addition, we recently had an applicant go to the Board of Adjustment, requesting a front-yard setback variance to preserve a significant grove of cottonwoods. One of our recommendations at the Design Symposium was to develop neighborhood streetscape and landscape plans, and that is something we want to continue to work on. Garton said she could think of several houses that do not present any kind of a street-presence because they have planted landscaping that has completely hidden the house, and on small parcels, I think that is inappropriate; there is nothing for the street, so I think that is one reason that came out of the Design Symposium too, that kind of planning. Kerr asked, what are the purposes of the height limitation in the code? Clauson answered, in general, the purpose of the height limitation in the code is to prevent structures from being too tall relative to their neighbors. So, the various districts have established height limits that are based on the prevailing height of the structures that are there. Kerr stated, my question then, is related to the third item; for slopes 8:12 or greater. It seems to me that if that encourages higher pitched roofs, that in affect, defeats the purpose of any height limitation because it will then begin to obstruct people's views. Clauson answered, it does, and it doesn't. In general, a steeply pitched roof does not present 12 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION 5~AY 16, 1995 the massing against views in a negative way, that a very shallow, much bulkier roof, would present. In terms of cityscape, a collection of steeply pitched roofs, exemplified to its extreme by the spirals of churches, almost always goes well with landscape vegetation that is tall and the surrounding natural features. So, in general, I don't think it is negative in that way, and that is why we are trying to get away from a blanket height limit. You could, very simply say, don't build anything higher than 30 feet, or whatever it is, but if you said that, that would mean that a flat roof building at 30 feet would be equivalent in its intrusiveness to a pitched roof building with its ridge line at 30 feet. That's why we tried to differentiate between the flat roof building, with much lower height level and various kinds of roof pitches. Haybe some of the architects here, would like to add to that. Hichael Ernemann stated, I think this issue has to do more with character, than it does with absolute height with dimension. Typically, Victorian residential form, is built around, quite often, roofs that are a 12 and 12 pitch; same height as there is half the width between the eaves, so to speak. The minute you start to get shallower you start to get a form that, I think, is closer to chalets. I think, in the attempt by staff to encourage harmony with the older structures, especially in the west end, they have given an incentive or a bonus, to allow the roofs to approach the same form, same character, that historically is threatened. I think it is a good idea. Bill Poss said, my comments are very similar to Hichael's. This is incentive-ordinanced for design. I agree also, there can be the ability to abuse that height limit and you might get some neighbors that would object to that blocking their view. I don't know how you get around that, but I think some discussion needs to occur. What we were trying to do with the incentive is allow second stories to appear or allow to occur, under a steep pitched roof with dormers that might come out. The old ordinance was a disincentive in that you measured to the halfway point of the roof, so, when you went to see the pitch, you could never go over the 5 foot line, so the mid-point moved down and discouraged the steeper roofs. When the abuse can occur, is when you have the two stories and you put the steeper pitch, eave-line, break-line, or plate-line above or at the top of that, it does exceed the 30 foot height limit. If someone were to abuse it and take a much wider approach, the design would be out of character with what happens in the west end. I think something has to happen there; either we restrict the 13 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION 5~AY 16, 1995 plate-line or we restrict the maximum height, as Stan said, but we still want to be positive and pro-active in its incentive. Kerr said, I understand where we are trying to get, but I also understand what we are talking about is money. If a client comes in and says, I have unlimited resources, ( and we have a lot of those people that come to this town), and I want to build the biggest and fanciest house I can build under these new ordinances; what would the unintended consequences of our ordiances be? We may be well-meaning, we may want our houses with steep-pitched roofs, but we may get some things we don't really want. Bill Poss stated, this is a great ordinance and staff has worked really hard on it. You can tell, I'm really positive on this ordinance. The review process may allow you to do that, if height and going over certain floor area is under a certain review process, you could control it in that way. I think it is pro- active, and there is plenty of incentive for us, as designers, but people who tend to get involved in it are sensitive to these problems; a person who is not sensitive to it, can abuse it fairly easily and I think we have to work on that. Hunt said, I basically like the roof line flexibility, the height flexibility as you go to a steeper pitch. The one problem I see is, if for example, the ridge is parallel to the street or the shorter dimension, then on a City lot, you are working a long dimension or potentially a pitch than can start out with a plate line of 50 feet instead of a plate line of 30 feet. That would be something that if the ridge line were parallel to the street, the additional height you would get would be "horribly" obvious and exactly against what you would want to accomplish. How can we prevent that from happening? Bill Poss said, I think that is real easy, I think we could do that through the checklist or the Design Standards. Clauson added, one of the things that the Design Standards asks for is that you break up the principle facade. Because of that, you are never having a rectangular, monolithic building under which you would develop your roof line. Inherently, you need to modify your roof line in accordance with the modifications we are requiring for the principle facade, so I think you are forced into generating some different forms as you move along, and not a single monolithic form. Hunt said, I agree with that, but I am looking at it, let's say an example, where the roof line parallels the street, and let's say, 14 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION 5~AY 16, 1995 you have three lots. One of the ways of using this is going to a high pitched roof with dormers on it, facing the street. This could probably end up with a higher ridge line, much higher than desirable, under those circumstances. Do you see what I mean? That is my only reservation about it; I want this roof line flexibility, I have been an advocate of it, I don't know how many years. As a matter of fact, I was an advocate from just the maximum height limit to get us where we are now, because at one time we just had a fixed height limit, and that just promoted a square box under that height limit. If we can figure a way of preventing the aberration, that would be good. Clauson answered, two provisions that might do that, is one, a Design Standard that would say, under that circumstance, a steeply steeped roof, faces the street (means along parallel with the street) or the ridge line moving with the street. That would be one possibility. The other possibility would be setting an absolute maximum height. Garton asked for clarification; inside this checklist of submission requirements, there will be a Design Standard book? Clauson stated, we will work to make it clear in the ordinance, that the checklist for Residential Design Standards would be the ultimate thing, by way of review, if no other review were required. If any other review were required, whether it is historic preservation, planning & zoning, stream margin review, or Board of Appeal for some significant variance, then the checklist, and its being filled out by staff, becomes part of a staff report that is simply passed on to that Board. That Board accepts the checklist as a staff report and then goes forward to vary it in any way as they see appropriate as part of their specific review activity. If the person is not given a variance in some way, and is at odds with the checklist, then it has to go back to staff and be resolved. If it is the only thing, then it is, indeed, the only thing, but if it is part of some subsequent review, then it constitutes nothing more than a report and the body would control it. We think that will avoid the "ping-pong" affect which is something we do not want. Blaich stated, I think, that while objectivity is the goal, a good goal, I think subjectivity is always going to be a play in any of these reviews, whether it is an HPC, P&Z, or designer. I think the question really comes down to appropriateness; appropriateness on the site, in the neighborhood and the community at large, and we could sit here for many more weeks and discuss the finer points, they are coming up now. Bill pointed out, and I'm quite sure there are others, that are quite comfortable with the approach, and there 15 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION 5~AY 16, 1995 might be others who will feel uncomfortable and try to figure out a way to maximize. I feel, in the process, this has to be covered so that the inappropriate things are red-flagged and there is an opportunity for discussion with staff and/or whatever review process beyond the staff. Otherwise, I think we are going to be trying to fine-tune this thing to a point where we are never going to get it. In the meantime, I continue to see houses going up in certain neighborhoods, what I consider at least, inappropriate. Hooney stated, it is one of the points about having a street- oriented entrance and simply the way the mountains run and the way the north-south streets run. Some of the houses will then be facing away from the sun and we talked about this a little bit. We only have two options for people who live on those north-south streets that might want to orient the main volume of their house and might want to orient their front door towards the south or the east, and then not have their front door facing the street. Would there be any other possibilities that you could create, like under a landscape design that would have a more street-oriented approach to a house, instead of just saying, you have to have your door facing the street or you have to have a porch that appeals to this street? Clauson answered, I'm sure the possibilities are infinite; as much as you want to devise language to try to consider all the possible situations that might arise, but Solomon felt very strongly that probably the single most important thing you can do, is to orient the entrance to the street and to orient the principle window to the street, in order to give a sense of a relationship between the building and the street. While I can imagine situations where, absolutely, you didn't want to do that, I can also think it is probably best to simply go through the process that allows for an exemption from the standard, rather than try to figure out as many different ways of applying other kinds of standards. If you orient the principle entry on the long block, as the standard specifies, you are either orienting it north or south, basically. That is true for west end and east side, so if you are on a corner lot, your choice might be either an east or a west- facing entrance, and you might particularly want to have west-east facing entrance if you have a north-side house. Do we want to devise language for that or do we want to simply prevent that person by going through a process by which he is exempt from that. On curvilinear streets, where you might have all kinds of orientations, I think you still get some advantage by having the entry oriented towards the street. We had testimony from one person at the first hearing that "our neighborhood is not pedestrian-friendly, we don't even want people to walk in the streets". That was an opinion, but I don't think it is universally 16 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION 5~AY 16, 1995 shared. For the most part, I think people believe in relating houses to the streets and being able to walk and have a sense of that relationship. Lamont added, Tim, our concept of the Design Appeal Board would be that someone could say, for this particular reason, I don't comply with the checklist, but this is how I intend to enhance this feature. For example, your idea that someone had a landscape feature or something that gave a presence onto the street, but their front door wasn't onto the street; that is a good example of what the Design Appeal Board could consider. That is our concept of the Board, to allow for additional flexibility on particular sites. It is not like the Board of Adjustment that has this standard, what is your hardship? It is supposed to be a discussion back and forth that we have right now, with the Design Review Board. Kerr stated, I want to move to public comment just as quickly as we can. I just want to follow up on the point that Tim made and I know you are going to hear it when you get to City Council, about the fact that there is no apparent reference to energy efficiency and solar beams and those kinds of issues. There is one particular Council member that you are going to hear from on that and there may be valid issues. I just wanted staff to be aware of that. The other question I have is related to what we have already discussed, if one is to assume that R15B is excluded from this, what rules apply to them? Clauson answered, what would be excluded for R15B would not be those aspects of the code which are universal; the way in which we counted garages, would be the same for R15B, the way we measured height, would be the same for R15B. What would be excluded from R15B, would be the slope FAR reduction revisions and the Design Standards checklist. Kerr asked, do you think that is their understanding? Clauson said, my understanding was that the issue with R15B was, that they had voluntarily reduced their FAR limits when they annexed, and we confirmed that, on a 15,000 square foot lot, they were 25% less in FAR than the R15 district, so we figured the issue was FAR. Those measures which specifically reduced the FAR potential requirement, particularly slope reduction, would not affect the R15B. Kerr said, O.K. Kerr opened the public comment and submitted three items to the clerk; one was a letter from John McCormick, thanking and commending the Commission for tabling the Resolution for an Adoption of a Residential Design on May 9th; another letter from Bob Hughes representing Savanah Limited Partnership, and it commended the efforts of staff and others in dealing with the 17 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION 5~AY 16, 1995 "monster home" problem, and, in general, endorsed the approach as being both reasonable and enlightened in regard to the proposed resolution, nevertheless, there were things they wanted to have considered. Kerr stated those things would probably be brought up in public comment. An additional letter from Richard Klein was also submitted in support of the proposed resolution. (Ail three letters attached in record). Brooke Peterson stated, I am not here on behalf of any of my clients or on behalf of anyone other than myself; I am with my partner, and we both reside in the R15B zone district. I know that Gideon (Kaufman) made a plea last week and I want to reiterate what he said. After what was said last week and what Stan just said, I want it to be clear that the people in the R15B zone district, at least the ones we have talked to, aren't feeling what Stan just said is representation about exclusion of the R15B zone district. I don't think that you can take the R15B zone district, and certain aspects of the FAR reductions, exclude it, and then put it in, in other respects. For example, the garages; the measurement you are talking about,the re-defined measurement or loss of FAR above 500 square feet. Very clearly, when we annexed, and I was a part of the process, we voluntarily reduced our FARs because of the topography and the dimensions of our lots in our neighborhoods. We have been, and continue to be, in Aspen Grove, Norwood, and Eastwood, extremely sensitive to what goes on up there to the point where we have fought with neighbors about putting in employee dwelling units, which have been put in, in spite of the fact that the zoning prohibits them from being put in. Lamont said, not with this process. I just want it for the record. Peterson added, they have been put in and they haven't been removed, but that isn't the issue. I think that the understanding is that R15B zone district, in a lot of different respects, should be excluded from these calculations which take away from the garages because of the overall density reduction that was accomplished by the annexation. This was the one neighborhood that came into the City where FARs were looked at before they were imposed, and where we actually went through a neighborhood review process to discuss the inclusion in the annexation. I think that is important for the Commission to remember, because of the fact, that in no other neighborhood has that process taken place. As a property owner, don't penalize us anymore. I already know on my 16,000 square foot lot that I am "maxed out" in the FAR of about 3,200 square feet and I think that is a pretty interesting situation. Don't penalize us anymore by these calculations 18 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION 5~AY 16, 1995 regarding the garages, let us have what has been excluded, that is what we agreed to when we annexed. Thank you. Bob Hughes said, I am here on behalf of my clients, Savanah Limited Partnership, but I am here also, on my own behalf. With respect to the letter I submitted, I would like to go to the last paragraph. I think staff is doing a terrific job on this proposal; I think the approach has been pretty creative and enlightened, I think the process has been inspirational and a good process. In saying this is an incentive ordinance for design, I think this is what it is all about. Instead of a negative, you can't do this, you can't do that, this sets it up for people that can get creative and the products are going to be great. When there was some discussions as to whether or not which neighborhoods come in, initially, I was thinking maybe they could pick Cemetery Lane out, that would be great because that is my property. As I see this whole thing evolve, I'm happy to put some more restrictions on my property. Hughes stated, on behalf of Savanah, and I hate to bring it to you on this late date, but I would like to make an argument for opting out the Aspen Meadows Specially Planned Area. I think, much the same arguments that apply with the R15B zone district would apply here. I have outlined those in this letter, if I could just high- light them for you. I think a lot of you people were involved in that rather lengthy Meadows Planning process, but there was a pretty significant give- and- take throughout that whole process, and economics drove the project. The process culminated in, among other things, four single-family lots on the southern part of the old Headows racetrack. Initially, we conceived these lots as being 15,000 square feet, and had they been approved at that, we wouldn't have any concerns at all with this thing. During the give-and- take, we agreed to reduce the size of the lots to 12,000 square feet, but in exchange, we negotiated an FAR of 4,540 square feet, excluding a 500 square foot garage, but including a 500 square foot accessory dwelling unit. Those were dimensional features that were very important to us to make sure we could get the market place that we wanted, and get back what little we could from our investment, and you can bet your bottom dollar, that if we had felt that in just a short three years after that fact we were going to have those dimensional features being compromised, we would have insisted upon 15,000 square foot lots; we certainly have the land area for that. Hore importantly, with those four lots, the approval is mandated a private design review board comprised of members within that little four-lot community, and one member, which has to be an HPC designate. We have also developed some 19 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION 5~AY 16, 1995 private covenants and guidelines which were also incorporated in the process and are "tailor-made" for these lots. Hughes stated, our feeling is, much like in the R15B area, where Stan mentioned that private home owners and their private covenants are having a sort of architectural review function; we have got the same kind of thing. For those reasons, we would like to see if we couldn't opt out the SPA. Kerr asked, wouldn't it be true, if you are part of an SPA, and this is part of the SPA agreement, that you are already excluded and opted out? Hughes answered, no, from a legal analysis, it is just how far you are protected under, what they call, the vested rights legislation that exists, and from a technical, legal standpoint, we may no longer have vested rights protection for those set FARs. I my opinion, the fact that the City may legally be able to say, we can expose you to this new thing; the City ought not to do that. I think the way this is evolving, there was some good constructive criticism last week; staff has been responsive to that, the language is being "fine-tuned", and I would love to see you adopt this and get it moving on. Evan Korn, a local builder in Aspen, stated, I like what is being done here. It was a response to what was seen as an excessive, extreme problem, or at least, if you read the newspapers, that's how it was. We come up with a commonsensical, if you will, approach, and a logical approach. It leaves creativity in the hands of the people, which is where it belongs, and I would like to see this go through tonight. It has been a year now, since this all started; it is a good document and what I would not like to see is an extension or change in the rules again. It is not necessary and would create more issues and more problems, and more outcry from the public, so, my comment is this; you have an excellent proposal in front of you and I would like to see it through. Bill Poss, architect in Aspen, said, I want to compliment staff and say this is one of the very few co-active pieces of legislation that is starting to occur in town. It is really a design incentive for us, as designers, and is very pro-active. It is what we call in our circles; trying to address urban good manners. So, we are really trying to raise the consciousness of the designers and developers in town to address things that are very important to our character, and I think this goes a long way to doing that, and it is a very good ordinance. There are the few little areas; whenever you have new legislation, in where you take a little bit, you create non-conformities, and they are minor in this ordinance. I 2O PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION 5~AY 16, 1995 think height needs to be discussed quickly, I think we can work on that and I am a little uneasy in the reduction for floor area for a slope. I don't understand it enough and I'm trying to study a few projects to see what that does, because that may create some non- conformities in some of the outlying areas. Ail and all, I think staff has done a very good job of this, and Stan, Leslie, and Amy really worked hard on this and this is a great ordinance. Sara Sue Kataoka, realtor in town, asked, if an individual didn't think that their property, in some way, could conform to the checklist (the R15B and the Headows being excluded from this) and if an individual property owner felt that they had had some sort of vested right that had been given to them, could they just elect to go before the Design Review Board or do they have to have just cause? Clauson answered, no, you simply have to indicate that for some reason you want your particular development proposal to be reviewed, rather than to meet the standards of the checklist. Host people, if they could, would prefer just the simplicity of not having to go through that Board. Kataoka stated, I think it is a really good ordinance, and you have worked hard on it, and there are a lot of positive parts. I think there will be individual owners of property who feel that they need to be treated just like everybody else, and if they feel that they have something that was given to them, they need to have some sort of review board. Clauson answered, yes, and let me add to that. Someone spoke up in the first hearing and said, if this goes through, I'll just have to sell my property to a developer. Personally, I feel that this ordinance will accommodate a wide, varied range of development needs and personal programs for a given site. There is an out, if it proves to be not so, in a particular case. I can't imagine how it would so impact a property owner that they would not be able to have some use of their property in some meaningful way. Kataoka added, my last comment for P&Z is, I am for this ordinance and I think it is incentive-based. I think if we could get some sort of press or statement out there to show where it is incentive- based instead of negative-based the community would have an easier time of it. Janver Derrington asked for clarification on the legality issues of the ordinance until it is either adopted or rejected by Council. Clauson answered, we re-visited that with the attorney on Friday. When a zoning change is recommended by Planning & Zoning to City Council, then any development which has not been applied for, up to that point, may come under the provisions of that ordinance if it is passed. It allows up to 6 months for Council to respond to 21 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION 5~AY 16, 1995 that. To respond to the recommended ordinance for Planning and Zoning, in fact, Council has adopted a very tight schedule which would lead to second reading on the 12th of June with first reading coming very soon on Hay 22nd, and a worksession with Council is Hay 23rd. So, I think anyone who feels in limbo will be in limbo for only a very short time. Derrington stated, the reason I am asking is, if someone was to begin a project under this ordinance, assuming it is passed tonight, and they got their plans ready and submitted them on June llth, before the Council meeting; and Council decided they didn't like one of the provisions and they changed the language or the ordinance, what would be the process, then? Clauson answered, I understand your question, and there are some complex issues. I think if anybody needed to apply for a building permit, tomorrow, we would work very closely with them to try and figure out a way that was compatiable with whatever review standards might apply, whether or not Council adopts this. I think that in every case there is some solution that would be acceptable. If Council, at their second reading, adds a provision, I don't believe that provision would applicable retroactively. It is only what is here before us now. Hike Ernemann, resident of Aspen for 25 years, stated, over the years I have found myself, usually, on the opposite side of the table from the Planning & Zoning Commission, Boards of Appeals, and Staff. In October, I was one of the few that was invited to participate in the symposium by the mayor, and my first thought about this thing was, remember the old saying, "if it's not growth, don't fix it". It became clear, in short order, that it was really growth. Today, if we walk though the west end in particular, we can look around and see examples. Evidently, enough people saw what was happening and suggested that we better get to work and fix it. Ernemann said, the Symposium participants cautioned Stan and his staff about several things, and when we came away from the Symposium it was real clear that we wanted subjectivity to the fullest extent as possible. We moved; we wanted incentives as well as penalties, we really wanted clarity, a simple document that we could all live with and conform to, rather than something open to array of interpretation by this body or that body, or another individual. Secondly, an incentive that came out of that Symposium was, that it was acknowledged that, we as a community, have, over the years, demonstrated a willingness to restrain ourselves, to control our conduct. Despite the outcries that we have heard when we've talked about this, it has always paid off. 22 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION 5~AY 16, 1995 Ernemann stated, growth control; gee, I remember the hearings when that came in in the mid 70s. The 8040 Line, and perhaps more recently, no smoking in public places and restaurants. So, my sense of it is, that everytime we've carefully acted to control ourselves, it has paid us off, in many ways; there is increased quality of life, and as well, with more and more visitors coming and bringing their dollars to help keep our economy alive. The document that has been put together is not perfect, as we have heard; there are several special interests that I think probably do need to be heard and sorted out. I think Stan, Leslie and Amy, and the people in Dan Solomon's office, have done an incredible job; this is first-rate work. I think all of us should be very thankful that we have people like that working on our behalf. He said, I think the Design Appeal Board that has been suggested can be very effective, but it has to be a Board that consists of informed people, and objective people. I don't know who is going to select these people, but if we end up with a bunch of attitudes, we're going to have wars. You need people who know what the beginnings of this community were, what the roots of it were. You need people who know when they look at Mrs. Paepcke's house that it is a beast compared to what it was when it was built in 1888. Lastly, I think we need to acknowledge that there are going to be loopholes. The situation that was very correctly described, the roof pitches verses the ridge running parallel to the street, and the stand between the plate heights that support roof, it is just a few of the many examples that will occur. Accordingly, let's re- visit this thing after it has been passed, and I hope it will be, in short order; and acknowledge it, that we've got to re-visit it, in one year, or 18 months, or whatever we think, to correct and re- guide it. Ernemann said, lastly, I have one more comment that is separate from this issue. The character of the west end, apart from the architecture, is very largely formed by the trees; cottonwoods. They are reaching a point in their maturity where they are about to go away. In Switzerland, if you cut down one tree, you must plant two. I think, as we move forward, I am told by Stan, that they are working on a tree or planning ordinance which will be very cognizant of the fact, that a lot of the character in these neighborhoods that we are concerned with, comes not necessarily from houses, buildings or architecture, it comes from planting and vegetation. We should be very careful as we move forward to encourage, again, with incentives. 23 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION 5~AY 16, 1995 John Torinus commented, I don't think an ordinance should be written that is in conflict with another ordinance; no matter how careful you plan it, you are going to end up in front of a review body. I think that the laws should be written so if you wish to avoid any body, group, arbitrary, that you can do that. I think there is conflict with no tree cutting, and your setbacks are in conflict with that, particularly in the west end. It requires somebody to say, I don't know what I am going to be able to do on my property until five people tell me; I don't know whether I can cut the tree or whether I change my setback. That's not a good ordinance; there ought to be something that says, if there is the conflict, this is how it is handled, and if you don't like that way, you can go to the Board and have it reversed. I just don't think writing laws that are in conflict with existing laws, is good. Secondly, I have reviewed the Headows SPA PUD, just accomplished three years ago, and I guess you spent a lot of time on it and so did City Council. To tear that all apart, I really think is silly and I think Bob's arguments are very humane. They have their own regulations, which are very tight, and in conflict with what you are going to do. Again, you have got something where someone who wants to build on one of those lots won't know what he can do, or what his answer is, until he goes before some kind of a review board. It seems silly, it was all carefully worked out, there is no side-yard setback on two lots, you may remember that. There is the way the FAR is counted, it is entirely different than your proposed ordinance. I feel it would be silly to destroy all that, given all the work you have put in on it, and that is all my comments. Kerr asked if there were any other public comments, there were none; he closed the public hearing at this point. Kerr said, perhaps the best way for us to proceed would be to work through Stan's memorandum, and see where we are on some of these major issues. The first is a procedural issue and how should we proceed, if at all, and there are five alternatives that are presented. I guess, the thing to do, is kind of get a feel from the commissioners of where we are in items 1-5, and then maybe that will determine how we will proceed with the rest of the meeting. Chaikovska said, the first one is the one we are considering, that we have been talking about throughout this entire process and probably the commissioners would agree, that number two could be eliminated which is an across- the- board reduction of FAR by 15%. Kerr asked, is there anybody that thinks that number two is their number one option? (There were no comments). Chaikovska continued, number three is what we have been operating under pretty 24 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION 5~AY 16, 1995 much until now. I don't think that anybody wants to see a continuation of that, does anybody have a comment on that? (There were no comments). Chaikovska asked, number four? (There were no comments). She said, we are all in agreement, then, that number one is what we are striving for which is this residential design standard? Kerr added, so, everybody is in some sort of agreement as to the process; we may not like certain things, but the general direction; everybody's comfortable with that? So, we are operating under number one. Kerr stated, now let's talk about application, whether it is city- wide, and again, I think Stan, you gave a synopsis on that. Apply to all zone districts, exclude R15B, or some, or all, or some other zone districts and/or specially planned areas? Hunt said, I think we should explain R15B and specially planned areas, specifically. Tygre stated, I would agree, except for measurement of FAR. I think that measurements have to be measurements, regardless of zone district. If you measure FAR in one way, in one zone district, you have to measure it the same way, because theoretically, it is an objective standard. I agree with you conceptually, I think that a specially planned area like the Headows, certainly, is a special case. I am really concerned about having different standards of measurements in different neighborhoods. Hunt answered, I can understand that but, for example, one of the problems is, take the R15B. Now, if we start including that, that in affect, changes their FAR measurement to their detriment, so there are specific things we have to iron out; generally, yes, I would like to have everyone to be measured on the same FAR basis. Haybe we are in that, it's excluding R15B, and in that zone district, excluding garages to 500 square feet in the FAR for that zone district if we are going to apply it in other zone districts. Tygre said, I guess what I was saying is, I think we have the same end result in mind; I think the way I would prefer to accomplish it is to say, the FAR is measured the same way, but neighborhood standards, for that particular neighborhood, would be different. Clauson added, perhaps I can be helpful here. The problem with our existing ordinance is that a number of very important parameters are given as part of the definition section. For example, FAR is defined, "FAR is all the spaces within exterior walls" and then it goes on to say, "that a garage is an FAR up to the first 500 square 25 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION 5~AY 16, 1995 feet". It doesn't say anything in respect to height. What we want to do, and what will be a fundamental change in the way we want to do it, is to say, this is how FAR measured; it is measured from the exterior walls and if you want to know what the standards are for FAR in your neighborhood, look to the residential development standards. Then, we will have the opportunity to say, the garage allowance is "such and such", and if we want to say, the garage allowance by district is, "such and such", we can do that there. We will have a uniform method of measurement, but varying standards might be possible. I think it will be a lot easier for people. Tygre said, that is exactly what I meant to say, Stan. Hunt said, I think we agree. Garton stated, can staff respond to Bob and John's concern about the SPA you are establishing? Do we have a problem with other people saying, well, wait a minute, I have got vested rights? Vested rights says, if you haven't pulled a building permit yet, once you pull the building permit you have to come in. Clauson answered, the ordinance is clear about vested rights. If you go through a public hearing process you can establish vested rights for up to three years, and we know of many instances where that three year period has been extended. If you don't go through a public process you are allowed vested rights for eighteen months. That is one issue, the other is, I think, those neighborhoods or those specially planned areas, where they have done a very conscious attempt to deal with a design development strategy. Clearly, we have tried in various neighborhoods, when developments have come forward to do some special things, attempts have been made, and where we feel there are existing controls that are adequate, we can exclude those areas. Garton said, well, for instance, Williams Ranch would be excluded? Clauson stated, no necessarily. Garton stated, what that might do, is kick in affordable housing, in a backdoor way, by doing this saying it just part of development, it's really going to be under this. Anything that has been affordable housing lately has been SPA; anything down in the Rio Grande or anything like that we will have to put our own design standards into that, we'll have to carefully look at that now, anything that is an SPA development. Lamont added, I have sat in on a couple of meetings with our City Attorney and Bob and John and I have talked, specifically, about the Meadows SPA. If you read the SPA agreement, it talks about these four lots and there is a lot of language, unlike many of our SPAs, that talks about how the floor area is to be calculated for these four homes. Now, the Meadows SPA had vested rights status and the vested rights had expired, so, their question, for both 26 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION 5~AY 16, 1995 John Worcester and I, about a month and a half ago, was how would these proposed changes to the code affect this particular SPA. So, we asked John Worcester to render us an opinion regarding that SPA agreement and how these changes in the code might affect it regarding these four lots. I cannot think of any other project that we have done where we carefully spelled out what is counted in floor area, and what is not counted in floor area, and things like that. Garton stated, it is just that now Williams Ranch might come in and say, we are an SPA development, we are going to have our own design review covenants, they are going to be built into the SPA, and so on. I think we have to watch out for that or insist that such design review convenants be in every SPA project now, if we allow this for the Headows. Bob Hughes said, I can see that. Where is Williams Ranch in their approval, have they already gotten their approval? Clauson answered, they got their approvals. Hughes asked, did they have this same ritual that we set up for our four lots? Lamont stated, Williams Ranch, technically, is vested for three years. Hughes stated, the argument I have been trying to make is what you can and can't do legally is different that what you ought to do from a fairness standpoint. We sat down with all of you and the City Council and made a deal, and just a short time ago. We talked about the accessory dwelling units; if this thing kicks in, then we get to exempt 250 square feet of our accessory dwelling units, so we get to the same point. In my SPA, it says, I must include the accessory dwelling unit. If you're going to say I can't get a full exclusion for my 500 square foot garage, but I can get an exclusion for 250 square feet of my accessory dwelling unit, we get to the same spot. I think it is the fairness concept. Garton stated, that's my issue, the fairness, I agree with you. I'm thinking about someone else, though, in an SPA. It was that project on Cooper. Kerr said, it could be any PUD, for that matter. Garton said, that's better to say, PUD. Lamont said, let's say, the free market lots that were created as part of East Cooper Subdivision; we have one or two of those developing proposals that are coming before the Design Review Board under Ordinance 35. They were not exempt from the interim process, they have vested rights as far as the parcels that they created, but the design and the development of those parcels was not specifically spelled out. Garton said, once this is done, that's 27 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION 5~AY 16, 1995 my point. If we exempt the Meadows SPA, then I have a feeling we are going to have knocking at your door, people saying, we would like to be exempt from this. We are going to have to have real strict design review standards built into that approval process, because they are going to ask for that. Hunt stated, first of all, I look at the Headows as a negotiated deal and as far as I am concerned, those houses are built, in my thinking in this process. If there is another SPA or PUD that is in process right now, as far as I'm concerned, that's already done, that's "water over the dam". As far as new SPAs or PUDs coming in, now we will have the underlying guidelines to look at. Garton said, they may use them as a precedent to say, I'm going to be exempt, we want our own design covenants; we are going through such a strict review process already, we don't have to fit within this. Hunt added, but that review process will, in affect, contain these. Lamont stated the Design Appeal Board and the checklist are very site specific and very design specifically. A lot of what we see is very conceptual and we just see parcels, we don't see actual designs. Hooney stated, I don't feel like those houses are built, and I feel that we have the opportunity now to say that we really believe in what we are doing and, that what we are doing, applies to four houses that are going to be interloped, on the street, facing other houses, that I consider "monster houses". I just feel like now, we say, we really did this, we believe in it, we've had good feedback, but those four houses that aren't vested; we'll just let them go because they are going to be the last four houses that are going to teach us how badly we hated the other houses that caused us to move in this direction. People are going to buy those lots saying, this is my only chance to build exactly what the City doesn't want me to have, and I don't know. It's my opinion whether it's nonsense. I just feel that if we do this, we do it all the way, and if it was vested, and I sympathize with the process that they went through to create a really legitimate SPA over there. Now, to use a great legal jargon, we have a new game plan here, we have a new identity for those neighborhoods. Kerr asked, do we have any more comments about the applicability of the ordinance? Buettow stated, my opinion aligns with Tim's, a great deal as this is a new plan, this is what we have chosen to go with, and we should go with it. I accept the situation that there are those vested and their legal rights conflict with this. 28 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION 5~AY 16, 1995 Chaikovska asked, is the Aspen Headows project asking to be exempted from the FAR calculations or are they asking to be exempted from anything else? Hughes stated, we are asking to be exempt from it all. Again, we have our own architectural guidelines, and we would have to go through two boards if this ordinance applies to the Meadows; we have to go through our own, where there is an HPC number on and then we have to come to a Design Review Board with the City. The reality is, if these things apply to our lots, I can build a bigger home. I can now qualify for the 250 square foot exemption for an accessory dwelling unit, and it only costs me 62-1/2 feet to get my 500 square foot garage, so I net out about 190 square feet more than I would get, if these things didn't apply, if that is the intended result. Hooney stated, I think there are other mass and scale things that are in this ordinance that I really believe in, and if that's the "kick in the teeth" we have to take, I think that's better than having four houses that are not going to be exempt. It is just kind of the moral principle of the thing, I just don't know, I don't know where to draw the line. On the other hand, I am in favor of R15B being totally exempt. From the beginning, when we talked about this, my recollection was, that, philosophically, they were going to be exempt, and the way the Design Review for them was being incorporated into the City, I believe in that. I just think that if there is a wall of four houses over there that are going to be a monument to something that we are really not trying to do. Lamont asked Hughes, are these Design Guidelines and covenants drawn up? Hughes answered, yes, there are. This was all part of the Design Review process, we just didn't say, here is how big our homes are going to be, we said, here's what they are going to look like. This is very finely tuned already, otherwise, I wouldn't be asking for this exemption; I understand where you are coming from. I don't see why we are any different from R15B, in fact, I think we went through a more involved process than the R15B. Lamont stated, our City Attorney has not told us whether they are or they are not. We have met with the City Attorney and he is reviewing the SPA agreement to advise us as to what pertains, and what does not. Kerr stated, I think we need to clarify R15B exclusions, because I think Stan's understanding of how it would apply to R15B differs from, at least, some of the residents of the neighborhood. Garton asked, could I ask a question on the Meadows? If the vested rights has expired, why does the City Attorney need to review it? Lamont said, he is reviewing the SPA Agreement to see what was 29 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION 5~AY 16, 1995 specified. Garton asked, wasn't the agreement voided for just those four houses? Lamont answered, no, the agreement was the entire agreement and there is a section in the agreement that talks about these four homes. Typically, our agreements are fairly general and generic, and this agreement was not. We have had some discussions and some disagreements on what seems to be language out of the code that's included in the agreement, and what was put into the agreement specifically, for a specific intent. Hooney asked, is it possible for us to put on a sidetrack, this Headows question, so that staff can review it and find out if, under their stringent regulations, they have limited themselves even more, or as good as, our ordinance; then make a recommendation to us, because without us having that amount of information in front, especially me, for me to have an opinion that really isn't founded, I just think I have to have this in a separate decision. I would like to see us go forward with this, and I'm fairly satisified with the amount of things I know about R15B, but if there are facts and information the Headows group can provide staff, and staff can form an opinion on this, I think we can add this on at a later date. Hughes said, to make this easy, I don't disagree with what Tim is saying, and I guess it was unfair to come at you when I did, and it is going to have to be City Council to make this call anyway. If we could get you up to a comfort level where maybe you can amend your recommendation to say, at least the SPA ought to be excluded, that would be great, but I don't want to slow the process down because I would love to see a resolution recommending approval of this thing. Garton stated, I would like to see it a part of everything except R15B, and I would like to recommend that we consider the SPA Headows later. Kerr asked, does everybody pretty much fall within that? Chaikovska stated, I just want a clarification. The third option that you have is exclude R15B from some or all of the standards, as well as.. Kerr said, we still have not resolved that issue, as to what extend they are excluded. Clauson said, what I intended to show here was that, given their voluntary reduction in FAR, and their neighborhood covenants, which provide for design review internally, that we would eliminate the residential development standards, as well as those FAR revisions which might further restrict FAR. Then, I went on to recommend that the principle one is the slope reduction provision, but, I suppose, it might also be considered that the garage allowance also consitutes a restriction on FAR. Beyond that, I really don't think that any of the other provisions have any great input on FAR. 3O PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION 5~AY 16, 1995 Kerr stated, say that again, as to the FAR. Assuming that we get to this point, and we pass a resolution, I think we need to be very clear as to what extent they are excluded. If they are not, Brooke and Gideon are going to be in here saying, you "guys" said we were excluded, and .... Clauson said, we don't want that! Kerr said, I want to understand, to what extent we are excluding them. Clauson stated, if you wish to exclude them, the first recommendation is to exclude the Residential Development Standards, the second recommendation, because of the steep slopes that may exist there, exclude them from the Slope Reduction Provision; and the third possibility, which I guess I see as more optional, but they may wish to argue, is an exclusion from the new provisions for garages and allow them, simply, the existing 500 square foot garage provision. Garton said, all three of those? Clauson stated, that's up to you. The first is the Design Standards and the other two are those, which I believe, have any kind of affect on FAR. There are other provisions which are more permissive about FAR, for example, provisions that allow for porches. I'm not sure that we want to go through the ordinance and exclude those, as well. Hunt said, he was in favor of allowing them to operate under their existing rules and applicable FAR, and leave it at that. Lamont said, I understand what you are saying, but our code defines FAR in twenty different ways and we have changed a lot of those. Hunt stated, what I am saying is, leave them with their existing rules for slope reduction, leave them with their existing rules as far as the garage exclusions, leave them with their existing rules as to whether porches are counted or not, leave them with the existing rules. I don't have a problem with liberalizing the way we measure height and things like that and I don't see the height as varying FAR. Kerr asked, garages? Chaikovska said, I am glad to see staff go back to their consultant's recommendations, however, I still have concern of the fact that we have added storage areas as part of the calculation. We are all talking about garages, and storage areas you may think is a small amount, but it is significant to some people; whether it is your garbage shed or you landscape shed, I would say exclude storage areas out of this definition, just stay with garages. Clauson said, actually, if it were a storage area prior to this, it would have counted in FAR. So, what we are saying is, we are not differentiating between a garage that has one car, and one car's worth of bicycle, garbage, recycling storage; that's all garage. Really, I would argue that this is a useful clarification because, we have had in the past people saying, they had a garage there but they are not putting their car in it, they 31 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION 5~AY 16, 1995 are using it for bicycles and other things, you ought to enforce the zoning ordiance against them. We don't think that is a zoning issue that we really want to enforce on a city-wide basis. If people are allowed 250 or 500 square feet, or whatever the amount is, of garage and storage area, and however they choose to use that ought to be up to them. So, that is why storage areas are specifically included as a clarification here. Chaikovska stated, I still would be in favor of 350 square foot exemption, rather than the 250. Kerr stated, I faxed a memorandum to the staff about my idea; mine was, to exclude everything up to 500 square feet, I guess the way it is now, but to count everything over 500 at .75, so everyone is entitled to their American dream, two-car garage. Tygre said, I have a similar proposal and I don't have the exact dimension, but my idea was, that if you are reducing the parking requirement, which I think is perfectly reasonable, you are still requiring people to accommodate two cars; you should give them enough room to accommodate two cars, in a garage. That seems to me to be logical, whatever that measurement might be, and assuming that the cars are not necessarily, Wagonneers, Range Rovers. The kinds of cars that most people drive around her, most people should be allowed to have a garage that will hold two of those cars. Whatever the dimensions turn out to be, that should be excluded from FAR. Garton stated, I support staff, in fact, I actually supported their proposal last week, but in the interest of moving this forward, I will support the new staff revisions because I think you have to look carefully at what Stan and staff has said; you can still have that size of garage, you will only deduct, what is it, Stan, 100 square feet would be charged, and is all that is required. No, it's not complicated, it is very simple. Hooney asked, is it Option 3 here, that is our new recommendation? Lamont answered, Option 2. Garton stated, I think choices have to be made; there are design choices to be made and you can make a choice for a bigger garage, no one is keeping you from having a two-car garage, you are just going to be charged a little bit or you are just going to reduce some other part of your living space. It's very good, a lot of work has been done on it. Kerr said, I can live with ~2, because I think it boils down to about the same thing. Buettow stated, I would just like to follow up on Jasmine's comment, a real place is a garage that will hold two cars, is 400 square feet, you can make them bigger for storage, workshelves, 32 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION 5~AY 16, 1995 etc., but if you want to hold two cars; 400 square feet. Garton asked Buettow, what do you think of this? Buettow said, I like it, I think the choice is very good. Kerr concluded, I think everybody is saying that, at least, they can live with Number 2. Kerr said, any other issues that we have not touched on, that we need to deal with tonight? Garton stated, Bill's gone now, but he said he would like to look at both the slope calculations he had some concerns about, as well as, the roof slope. Stan and Leslie, can those be brought up, and it doesn't have to hold up this resolution at all, perhaps at the worksession on the 23rd of the Council. Chaikovska stated, I have a procedural question. If we recommend this to Council, all of these issues that you have addressed and which you say you will incorporate within the process, or the height, or whatever. These all will get incorporated before us again, or that's it? Clauson answered, not necessarily. You could insist that they come before you again, but we promise to faithfully write down everything to bring to Council, and for those things that are not resolved, for example, whether there should be an absolute limit on height on the steeply pitched roofs, we would write that down that it is something that you recommend and that Council study this further. Chaikovska asked, do we have to be specific about our recommendation that they incorporate all the issues discussed today? How does this work? Kerr added, the difficulty is going to be that, one or more of us, may favor some particular section of it, while others may not favor it. Kerr said, the difficulty I have, and I'll just state right now, unless someone is very crafty at wording the motion, I'll probably not vote in favor of it; not because I'm opposed to what we are trying to do, I'm not opposed to trying to limit the "monster homes", I'm not opposed to the residential design standards, but I am gravely concerned about the "glitch" in our code which permits us, in affect, to make law. It becomes effective upon adoption of this resolution by us, and we are not elected officials. So, I've got some personal concerns that I cannot overcome, and I've thought about it a lot since last week; about some underlying fairness and due process kinds of issues. So, no matter how good we are at putting this together and getting it into language that makes everybody happy, I have some real concerns about the procedure. There's nothing we can do about that, that's the way the code exists, but I really do have some concerns. I had the same concern when Ordinance 35 originally happened, staff knows this, I've expressed these before. Again, I want it on the record, that I am 33 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION 5~AY 16, 1995 not opposed to what we are trying to do, it just seems to me, we ought to take whatever time it takes. I know the process has been ongoing, I've seen the list of all that has been going on for the last year, but it seems to me we ought to take the extra time it takes to really get the ordinance put together right. So, that is my comment. Chaikovska said, I agree with Bruce, and that's what I was trying to say when I was asking, does this come before us again? Conceptually, this is great, but there are a lot of issues; are we going to incorporate this or not, or how was it going to turn out? When it leaves us, it leaves us, and that's it. It just goes to City Council from what you said, and we don't really see it again. Procedurally, that's an additional point that I have. Clauson stated, I would hate to have someone who favored this, to vote against it because that vote could well be misconstrued, but I think, to try and solve the problem, we have spoken on the issue of applicability and on the issue of garages, and those were the key outstanding issues. What remains, in my reading, is the understanding of what additional limit might be placed on steeply pitched roofs, if any. That seems to be relatively minor provision to craft in concept with the worksession. So, I don't think there are too many issues that are vague and undefined. Garton added, Bruce, I have to agree, I don't think it's appropriate for you, if you're in favor of the general trend of this, to vote against it. I think your issue is an issue that you need to take up with an attorney, and that's a whole other process. Kerr stated, I will bring it up with myself. Garton said, if you feel there is a real legal problem with an appointed Board making law, in affect, that's a whole other issue, and that's got to be dealt with an attorney. Kerr stated, the secondary problem in this, and as Harta referenced, what we have in front of us is a resolution, albeit, very complete, we have talked about changes and things. If a motion is made, and seconded, and this is what we pass, this becomes the law, no matter what we have talked about tonight. Garton said, but we're changing a couple of the Design Review Standards. Kerr answered, we don't know what we've changed, I mean, in order for us... I just don't think it is specific enough, I think there is enough vagueness out there, that our understanding of what we agree on, and what someone out in public understands.. Garton asked, could you get a copy to us before the Honday meeting (Council), have it re-written? Clauson answered, I suppose, yes. 34 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION 5~AY 16, 1995 Clauson added, my understanding would be that you would be passing a basic resolution with conditions that the resolution be changed in the following specific ways. Garton said, I would pass that, but we might not actually see it written, Bruce, until Friday. We often, pass resolutions, Bruce, that are not all written out. Kerr stated, they were not as important as this. This affects everybody in town. Brooke Peterson said, I have a suggestion. Since this is going to Council so quickly, you could pass some kind of a resolution that doesn't have the legalities of it. Here's the problem, your code says, the resolution I pass shall go into affect, and is the law, until City Council acts on it. The concern you are wrestling with is how that may conflict with the City Charter, which says basically, these can't go by without an ordinance, which can only be done with an elected body, City Council. Maybe as a P&Z member, you are charged with the duty of implementing that aspect of the code. You can always make your comments be known, I guess, but I think this is all going to happen in such a short time I don't think anyone can get caught in the "cracks" in this one. I understand what you are wrestling with, I really do, there's no easy way out of it. Lamont added, the question is, can Planning & Zoning Commission pass on just a recommendation to Council on a zone change and a code change, and if it's just a recommendation, and it's not done by a resolution, do we, in affect, have a valid process? Garton said, motion says, I move to adopt; you would prefer to see us say, I move to recommend? Peterson stated, yes, that would probably exclude the fine lines. Kerr said, you may be right, if it were something other than the form of a resolution; I can go with a recommendation to Council that some form of adoption take place of this ordinance. Hooney stated, it seems to me, there is some consistency the way these resolutions are adopted, it's not just like we're inventing this time frame for this zoning change that we're approving now. In the past, and in the future, this same lack of a time frame, this gap, between what we recommend and what City Council approves, is going to be consistent. It is not going to be unfair in the future to anyone who it is not unfair to now. If we are isolating someone who is thinking about entering the process now, and the rules weren't going to apply in the future the way they apply to them now, I would worry about that, because I would think there would be something in the specific ordinance or in the code that needed to be changed. Because of the way the code is written, it has been consistently implemented in the past, they 35 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION 5lAY 16, 1995 are the rules that people have played by in the past, we have had the same kind of gaps in zoning changes in the past, and if we use the code the way it is written, we are going to have the same kind of gap in the future. So, it is part of a process, and people who object to that gap, or fall into that crack, are going to be those individuals that are going to get specific review. In my mind, I think that I understand there really is a time frame here where we are in limbo with our authority, and we might be over-extending what our responsibilities are, but I think, because it is consistent, I can live with that time frame as something we are not taking upon ourselves to isolate any one individual or one case study. Kerr stated, my concern is not people caught in the cracks, it is an underlying fairness, legal kind of a question. It really shouldn't delay the rest of the commissioners. MOTION Garton stated, I move to adopt Resolution 95, adopting Residential Design Standards and all related text amendments as recommended by the draft recommendation for residential design with the following conditions; exclusion of R15B, and the revised modification for the free allowance for garages as discussed at this meeting. That modification to the garage was Number 2, adopt the consultant's recommendation of 250 square feet of exemption with a .25 accrual for garages between 250 and 600 square feet; further study be given to a maximum height which might be applied to the steep slopes, and that there be further input from the attorney and the Meadows Savanah on Aspen Meadows. Buettow seconded. Discussion of Motion Lamont stated, John Worcester said that you may pass on a recommendation to City Council on recommendations that staff is bringing forward to you, without passing a resolution, and it does not endanger our process, at this point. What it does, it does not suspend an issuance of building permits, like it would if you adopted this by a resolution. ( Issuance of building permits consistent with these new recommendations). So, what would happen is, Ordinance 35 does not expire until Hay 30th, so if you do not adopt these by resolution, but would like to pass a recommended motion onto Council for their review on Hay 22, what still is in place is, Ordinance 35, until Hay 30th. 36 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION 5~AY 16, 1995 Kerr stated, I don't know how this vote is going to turn out, but I am assuming staff will make sure that Council understands this discussion that we have had, and the vote, however it comes out on this resolution, it may not represent supporters of the ordinance, and all that sort of thing. Clauson said, may I suggest, if the resolution passes, but not unanimously, you may revisit with a recommendation that might, indeed, reflect the opinion of what is before you without the issues of the resolution. Chaikovska said, I will not support a resolution, but I will support a recommendation. Kerr said, let's have a roll call, please. Jasmine, yes; Roger, absent; Sara, yes; Tim, yes; Robert, yes; Marta, no; Steve, yes; Bruce, no. Vote was 5 in favor, 2 opposed, motion carried. Meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Carrillo, Deputy City Clerk 37