HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19950606 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 6, 1995
Meeting was called to order by Chairman Bruce Kerr at 4:30 P.M.
and he requested roll call.
Attending were: Roger Hunt, Sara Garton, Tim Mooney, Robert Blaich,
Steve Buettow and Bruce Kerr. Excused were: Marta Chaikovska and
Jasmine Tygre.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
Hunt stated, I guess I have a slight comment. Is there such a
thing as a slight comment? At the last Neighborhood Advisory
Committee Heeting there was considerable talk about people putting
things in the right-of-way, in other words, the street right-of-
ways around their houses, like rocks and berms and things like
that. I think I can safely say, that the opinion of the group was,
that that sort of thing should be discouraged. As it turns out, on
one side of my house, someone is putting a berm out into the right-
of-way, which is upsetting Engineering, and I can understand why.
Lamont asked, Engineering is aware of it? Hunt answered, yes, but
what they are not aware of, is diagonally across the street from
me, now they are putting great big boulders out into the right-of-
way, and I quickly went out and told them, heh, this is a City
right-of-way, boulders are supposed to be on your property, and if
they wanted to put them in the right-of-way they had to get a
permit to do it, which I don't think will be coming. So, I just
wanted to let you know that that sort of thing is happening and if
my little section of the world is any indication, it looks like all
of a sudden, we are in for a plague.
Lamont responded, we try and put it out there during Building
Permit Review, and anything like that. If people want to put their
lawn in a pedestrian way, which is what we call it in the west end,
because we don't have sidewalks; if they want to do that we don't
have a problem as long as it isn't a berm or boulders, or something
that obstructs people from walking on there.
Garton asked, does landscaping require a permit? Lamont answered,
no. Klm Johnson of staff said, I wonder if any work in the right-
of-way, including landscaping, does. Garton stated, I wonder if
landscapers should get a memo from the City; all the list of
landscapers that are in the yellow pages? Johnson stated, general
contractors, too. Garton stated, maybe, it would not be a bad idea
just to remind them.
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 6, 1995
STAFF COMMENTS
Lamont stated, on Stevens Landscaping, part of your Conditional Use
Review for the KJAX Dish, was painting the dish, and we wanted them
to landscape around the dish. They came in a couple of months ago
and asked if they could incorporate their landscaping with the
entire landscaping of the Red Brick. When the full plan goes
forward, that's when they would do that. We did not have a problem
with that as long as we were kept informed as to when they would be
doing it.
Well, a problem has risen; this fall they intend to tear up back
behind the alley and along the perimeter of the Red Brick, and
replace a lot of the sewer lines there. So, all the lilac bushes
that were just planted along the bike path behind the Red Brick
will probably be pulled up, so they are requesting, can they hold
off on their landscaping until after this activity. Garton asked,
have they painted, I haven't noticed? Lamont answered, my last
conversation was they needed to wait until the weather cleared, but
there's no problem with them painting it now, it was the
landscaping. I told them to call me on a regular basis and keep me
informed and up-to-date. Kerr asked, who is they? Lamont
answered, Julia Harshall, because she is doing the landscaping for
the Red Brick, and then, Suzannah Reid, if you remember, she was
the architect helping through the process. So, they call me on a
regular basis just to let me know, I always tell them I appreciate
it, and I will bring it to your attention. Kerr asked, you don't
need any action from us, do you? Lamont answered, no, I just
wanted to keep you informed that that is what is going on. Kerr
stated, as far as I'm concerned, staff can use their own judgment
on that.
Lamont stated, next Honday night is the second reading at City
Council; the public hearing for the Residential Design Standards.
It will be the first item on the agenda, and we are trying to split
up the meeting because there are so many items on the agenda, but
it probably be the only item on the agenda that night; that, and a
Golf Haintenance Facility Expansion. So, I just wanted to remind
you all that is going, if you are interested in joining in the
discussion. It is the public hearing. Secondly, the by-laws state
that your second regular meeting in June is the meeting where you
elect or re-elect your Chair. So, plan for that June 20th.
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 6, 1995
PUBLIC COP~ENTS
Kerr asked, are there members of the public here to comment on
things not on the agenda tonight? Any general comments? There
were none.
MINUTES
Hunt stated, I move to adopt the minutes of 9 May, 1995 and 16 May,
1995. Garton seconded. Kerr stated, I have one comment; I noticed
on the Hay 9th meeting, when Commissioner Kerr said, "please be
focused and keep your comments short", there were no staff
comments, no public comments. We might want to try that again.
Vote commenced, unanimous in favor, motion carried.
STAUFFER CONDITIONAL USE FOR AN
ATTACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT
Klm Johnson represented staff and stated, this Conditional Use is
for an attached accessory dwelling unit which is incorporated into
a re-modeling expansion of a home in Sierra Vista. This is
actually a request to legitimize an existing bandit unit. I hope,
that from the sketches I've included in your packet, that you can
see that the unit is a pretty nice unit compared to some that we
may have seen in the past. It is 660 sq. ft., studio style, but
with separate entries in both interior and exterior, and also to
the garage. The parcel did go through Special Overlay Review later
in the fall, last year, and it got approved as it was submitted, so
this is a follow-up to allow the rest of the expansion and re-
modeling to take place. She said, Don Huff is here, representing
Dr. and Mrs. Stauffer, and the Planning Office and the Housing
Office recommends approval of the unit as submitted, with standards
conditions regarding deed restriction and kitchen requirements.
Kerr asked, Mr. Huff, do you have any comments you want to make us
aware of, any presentation? Huff answered, not especially. The
only thing is, this was a really good bandit, because it was hidden
quite well behind existing garage doors. The Stauffer's first
option was to tear it out and fit the garage, because they really
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 6, 1995
needed the garage; so, what we have done is built the garage
through a separate permit and it is up and standing. They are
aware of the employee housing situation in the community and want
to try and legalize this unit rather than destroy it.
Johnson stated, I need to clarify; my entry paragraph says 660 sq.
ft., but the rest of my memorandum throughout says 470 sq. ft. It
is 470 sq. ft., for the record, because that is the way the motion
reads. I want to make sure it's clear.
Garton asked, what is minimum size in a studio? Johnson replied,
they have to be 300 to 700 sq. ft., so this one is about average.
Garton asked, has it been rented all along? Huff answered, no,
mame, the Stauffers have owned it, and this is their second year,
and they have been doing constant re-modeling on the property, and
as long as I have been involved with the property, it has not been
rented. Garton asked, will it be? Huff answered, yes. Their
intentions are for retirement here, in five years, and they want
somebody on the property. It is very nicely done.
Johnson stated, Chuck walked in and reminded me that he had sent me
a note earlier today, asking for a condition regarding that all
drainage on-site must be handled on-site. In other words, no
drainage shall be allowed off-site because of drainage constraints
in the neighborhood. So, that is an added condition.
Hunt stated, I have a couple of detailed questions, here. I was
trying to basically find the closet space in this, and it looks
like there is a new closet opposite the kitchen. Huff responded,
there is one right adjacent to the front door. The way this used
to be layed out is there was access into this mechanical room, so
they went to some fairly extensive modifications to make this
comply, from a large safety standpoint. They have created a new
wall to separate the mechanical room and another wall that
separates the new garage facility. We have added an additional
door, number A, which gives direct access, put in new windows, new
operable skylights, new hardwood flooring, it's going to be a very
nice unit.
Hunt said, the closet opposite the kitchen, is that more of a
clothing closet instead of a kitchen closet? Huff answered, yes.
Hunt asked, there is sufficient storage and closet space in the
kitchen area? Huff, yes, and what's not shown on here, is some
built-in wardrobe type units that are on the wall between the
garage and the living unit. I imagine the closet back by the
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 6, 1995
kitchen might become more of a pantry-type closet and the wardrobe
would probably suffice.
Hunt stated, that is just coming from the viewpoint I would like to
see this be lived in and be liveable. The only other point I had
was on the entrance, or the one that you show as the entry, which
is on the back side, or is there a garage entry, as well? I notice
that the roof seems to shed towards the doorway and that is
something that needs to be worked as far as snowshedding.
Huff answered, I can't tell exactly, there is a heavy overhang on
this house. Hunt stated, on the front side I noticed, but I didn't
notice it on the back side. Huff stated, it's not a four-footer
like on the front, but it is probably a good three-foot. He's made
a flag-stone walkway which really isn't shown on here. Hunt said,
should there be a little hip over that door to divert that? Huff
said, there could be, and he's mentioned that. I can't say
something that can't be had. I'm wondering, given the entry from
the garage, would it suffice? Hunt stated, well, this is sort of
shown as the main exterior entry, so, I think it's important not to
shed down on the main exterior entry. I would like to add a
condition to the affect that you will attack that potential
problem. Just how exactly, if you were willing to commit here,
fine, we can do that, or try to come up with words. Huff stated, I
would be willing to commit appropriate sheltered entry device to
the ADU. Hunt said, sheltered from snowshedding, basically.
MOTION
Hunt moved to approve a Conditional Use for a 470 sq. ft. first
floor level accessory dwelling unit at 1460 Sierra Vista Drive,
with Conditions 1-6 in Planning Office memorandum dated 6 June,
1995; with addition of Condition 7, while drainage must be retained
on-site; and Condition 8, shall provide a sheltered roof designed
for ADU entry on east side of home. Blaich seconded. Voting
commenced on the motion, vote was unanimous in favor, motion
carried.
Kerr opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Kerr
closed the public hearing.
Discussion of Motion
Garton stated, this isn't the motion, it has nothing to do with
this application now, but, how is the survey going with the Housing
Office? Leslie Lamont, staff, answered, the Housing Office
proposed two bid proposals for their work and they are in the
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 6, 1995
process of trying to combine their scheduled works. One proposal
that we got was bareboned minimum. The other proposal kind of
considered and addressed the questions that we will probably have
in the survey and proposed to come up with some recommendations for
us. So, the last time I talked with Dave Tolen, which was right
before I went on vacation, was that he was going to talk with both
people who had submitted and see if we could combine those. Garton
asked, so there is no problem with the funding of this survey?
Lamont answered, no, both of the proposals we got were way under.
Funding is not a problem.
NICHOLS CONDITIONAL USE
FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT
Kerr stated, this is also a public hearing and I open the public
hearing at this time.
Klm Johnson represented staff, and stated, this, also, is an
accessory dwelling unit. This one is going to be incorporated into
the basement of a replacement duplex, at 125 Park Avenue aka 101
Dale Avenue. The unit is proposed to be about 625 sq. ft. and will
be a one bedroom configuration. There is internal and external
access, and if you turn to Staff Discussion and our Conditions of
Approval, it is evident that we have some concerns, specifically
its egress and access. The entry from the outside enters a fairly
small patio area, which also happens to be the egress window space
or an adjacent bedroom. Staff would wish that the egress window
for the bedroom be changed so the exterior space, which is,
basically, the only usable exterior space for this unit, would not
have to have a window viewed directly into it. That would not
mean, however, that the free market bedroom couldn't have some
upper level window or stained glass or frosted window that would
provide some privacy into that patio area. Also, we would want
consideration of changing the interior doorway for the accessory
dwelling unit so that it enters into the living space of the ADU
rather than the bedroom. That, again, is a consideration of
privacy, if someone would want to go in or out of the ADU, it would
be potentially in a tenant's bedroom area.
Johnson stated, I did get one citizen's input on this, and the
person who came by is a neighbor across the alley, and down a house
or two. I discussed with him the fact that the ADU was going to be
conditioned, at least from staff's perspective, that one of the on-
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 6, 1995
site parking spaces be dedicated for the accessory unit because of
the restriction on Park Avenue. After hearing that, the neighbor
agreed and said that would be his only real concern that parking in
the general neighborhood is a problem. Assuming that the duplex
would be condominiumized at a certain point, that's a great tool to
mark on a condo plat that this space here is dedicated for use by
the accessory unit if it is rented.
Johnson stated, another item that we've mentioned, and this is both
the Housing Office and Planning staff, is that, we think it would
be helpful for the liveability of the unit, that the kitchen area
be increased by either decreasing the bathroom size or decreasing
the immediate cabinet space. The kitchen that is drawn into the
sketch is minimal, at best, especially in relationship to some of
the other amenities in the unit.
Nichols stated, I think what is sketched out there is just exactly
what you "guys" called for in your requirements. It doesn't show
any scale here, so you don't really know how big it is, but it is
exactly what you require. Johnson replied, right, but looking at
it, there is no counter space. I mean counter as flat surface, not
necessarily cabinets.
Hunt stated, actually, a 6 cubic foot refrigerator is probably not
much higher than the counter. The under-the-counter refrigerator,
it does say with freezer, but that could literally mean someplace
where you can hold some ice cubes. I had some of the same problems
with a kitchen design. Nichols again stated, all our architect did
was take your requirements, and what you "guys" require for a
kitchenette, and put exactly what you require. Johnson stated,
those are minimum requirements.
Kerr asked, Klm, do you have anything else? Kerr asked (Nichols),
do you have a presentation you want to make? There was none.
Buettow asked, on the main entry here, isn't this an encroachment
into your backyard setback, here? Nichols answered, you have the
new one? That was changed. Buettow stated, this one right here
shows it's clearly in the setback. Nichols stated, there's been a
revised one that should have been passed out to everybody. That
was brought up in the first meeting. Johnson stated, this one is
dated, Amendment ~1, April 12th. There has been a revised drawing,
but it's been worked out with the zoning official, that they have
re-configured the stairwells. So, I think that is an O.K. thing. I
included it in this memorandum because it had to precede me in my
discussions with the architect.
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 6, 1995
Buettow stated, O.K., and secondly, how do you intend to have your
people access into this unit, because it doesn't show any sidewalks
or anything to get to it? Nichols answered, if they are going to
park here (shown on drawing), this is a sidewalk. I guess it
doesn't show it. Johnson stated, it is paved under the upper level
deck. Buettow stated, my impression of these bedroom accesses
here, was that, this was clearly intended to be like a studio ADU,
and these two bedrooms are supposed to access off the main house as
guest bedrooms. That is my impression of the design. Nichols
stated, I don't have a problem switching the entryway from that
bedroom into the livingroom.
Kerr asked, will this end up being a 4-bedroom unit on one side and
a 2-bedroom unit on the other side, plus the ADU, is that what we
have right here? Nichols answered, yes.
Hunt stated, my general comments were, I thought the door should
enter the livingroom, as opposed to a bedroom. Is that the
official backside, or back entrance; I couldn't tell what which was
back or front entrance? And I also wondered if that interior door
was needed to that sort of useless hall between the bedroom and the
bath. That's not a major comment. One of my comments has to do
with storage and livability of these units, storage-wise, and I had
a big question about the kitchen storage. Also, in the bathroom,
which is a nice, large bathroom, but why a double sink for this
type of a unit; wouldn't it have been better to use that space, for
example, for a linen closet instead of a sink. Those are my
general comments, and I don't know how we want to filter them in.
Nichols replied, I agree with you on the doors, and I will talk to
my architect about that; I don't think we need three doors in that
space. I don't think they need two sinks, either.
Buettow stated, this unit would be much nicer if you eliminated
this door here (showing the drawing), if that's possible. Nichols
stated, I don't have a problem with that. Hunt asked, you are
talking about moving the bedroom door to the livingroom, that is,
the outside bedroom door, to the livingroom? Nichols stated, you
don't want to eliminate it because you want a secondary access to
it.
Hunt stated, you have, through the bedroom, I see, is that an exit
sliding glass door to a patio, or is that at a different level, I
can't tell? Johnson answered, that's emergency egress, so it's not
counted as a normal entryway. Hunt stated, so, then, the other
egress of the bedroom would be through the interior, so you don't
need that bedroom door. I don't know how to relate this, I can't
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 6, 1995
relate it to north-south or anything, but are we talking about the
back side where there are the two doors to the bedrooms, is that
the backside of this unit? There was discussion at random
regarding the drawings in which Johnson explained some details to
Hunt. Hunt said, O.K., I'm sorry.
Garton asked, where is the entrance at the bottom of the stairs,
into the livingroom? Nichols answered, yes. Johnson stated, it's
a sliding glass door. Garton asked, and that's the only light,
that lightwell? Nichols stated, I would like to put more
lightwells around there, you won't allow it. Garton said, we would
love to have a ground floor ADU.
Kerr asked, Chuck (Roth of Engineering Department), did you have a
comment? Roth stated, I was looking for the seven parking places,
I got the sixth one; I can't seem to find the seventh. Johnson
stated, if they determine that a parking space is necessary to be
dedicated, it would have to be added somewhere.
Garton asked, what are the plans for this ADU? Nichols replied, I
don't know.
Johnson asked Nichols, do you have your public notice?
(Photographs were turned into the clerk, but affidavit is pending).
Hunt stated, I guess we have resolved that the door will enter from
the other unit to the livingroom. Does that mean that, what is
shown as the bedroom door into the recreation room, does that get
eliminated, or does that stay? Johnson stated, it can be re-
located. Hunt added, in affect, that bedroom door becomes a
livingroom door. Johnson said, right, in fact, it could just turn
90 degrees, or whatever. Hunt stated, O.K. It's not a biggy, but
the unnecessary door in the hallway; does anyone want to address
what I see as very limited storage in this unit. That's what
worries me, I relate limited storage to not being very livable, as
far as a rental unit. Nichols asked, are you looking at this plan?
Hunt replied, I don't know which one I'm looking at. ( As shown on
drawing), Nichols stated, you walk in, you have a closet here, this
is all immediate cabinet and it can be storage, too. I agree with
the doors and the two sinks, we could take that out, it's possible
to put some more storage. Hunt stated, make a linen cabinet or
closet, or something like that. I would find that more livable. I
assume there is going to be some kitchen storage above here
(showing drawing). Nichols stated, I talked to the architect about
taking this out, and it was my understanding that we were showing
the square footage, the access, and where it was on the property,
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 6, 1995
and not really, necessarily, having you dictate the interior
design. But I agree with you, on both of those. Hunt stated, if
you are going to change the extra sink into some sort of storage, I
think that's great.
Garton asked, the stairway is all under the deck overhang? Nichols
answered, no, none of it is under the deck overhang. Garton
stated, so snow just dumps right into that stairway and lightwell
area? Johnson stated, it actually sheds onto the deck above, and
then it's flat. So, Gary, will have to accommodate snowmelt on
that flat deck if there's not a roof slope.
Garton stated, I'm not a designer student, but how does a sliding
glass door work in the winter as a main entrance? Buettow stated,
not very well at all. They stick, get a lot of ice in the channel
and freeze up easily. Nichols stated, there again, I don't have a
problem changing it, it gets down to where I didn't think you
"guys" were dictating design, in that you were more just looking
for the requirements. We could put a door in there with a
sidelight.
Kerr stated, our purpose is not to dictate design, our purpose is
to provide that these units are livable, and hopefully, even
occupied by who they are intended for, that is, employees. That's
the reason for the questioning. Nichols replied, I will have my
architect, I guess, make these changes, I guess I didn't understand
that. I have talked to him about the three doors into the
bathroom; I didn't like that idea and I don't like a sliding glass
door there, either. Buettow stated, it is also the only light that
goes into your kitchen, diningroom area. Blaich stated, you could
put a glass door in, full glass; it would serve the purpose and I
have one in my house and it works out very well. Garton added,
these are things that we would recommend, I don't think it is a
requirement, it's not a requirement from the Housing Office or the
City, but we would like to recommend it. Nichols stated, I don't
have any problem with these, I'll probably do all those.
MOTION
Hunt stated, I move to approve the Conditional Use for a 625 sq.
ft. basement level accessory dwelling unit within the proposed
10
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 6, 1995
Nichols duplex at 125 Park Avenue/ 101 Dale Avenue with Conditions
1-12 on Planning Office memorandum dated 6 June 1995. I add
Condition ~13, for removal of the extra sink in the bathroom and it
is recommended that that be replaced with storage or some other
use. It is recommended that the sliding door for the accessory
unit entry be replaced with a possible swinging door with as much
glass as possible. Hooney seconded, vote commenced, vote was
unanimous in favor, motion carried.
Discussion of Hotion
Johnson stated, if you want to kind of expand Condition ~1; we are
in favor of expanding the kitchen area to include and accommodate
storage and counter space. Hunt asked the Commission, is there a
way you would like to re-word 17 Johnson said, just include the
phrase and I will read the whole sentence. "The kitchen area must
be expanded to accommodate storage and counter space by decreasing
either the media area or the bathroom area." Hunt stated, O.K.,
that will be my Condition 1.
Kerr asked, what about the parking space? Johnson stated, one
parking space shall be added and dedicated for use? Kerr stated,
I'm not suggesting, necessarily, add it. Johnson said, if this is
dedicated solely for the ADU, then it means one of the free market
bedrooms, does not have a full parking space for it. Kerr stated,
that's what I'm getting at. There are six spaces by virtue of
having a single-car garage and a two-car garage; there are already
6 bedrooms in the free market for ADU, so the question is whether
there is a 7th space, that was Chuck's question. If there is a
requirement for a designated space, in addition to the other six,
where is it going to be, and must be indicated on the plat. Johnson
stated, it is not a mandatory requirement, however, because this is
a Conditional Use Process, the Planning Commission can final this
certain condition on the site, which would warrant some form of
parking, screening or
landscaping. There are a whole bunch of things they have
conditioned in the past, so this is typically, one of those.
Garton stated, the reason we require it at this site is because you
can't park on Park Avenue, it is so narrow. Nichols said, I know
that. The parking for this ADU unit is down-alley. Buettow
stated, basically, in answer to my question on the access to the
ADU, words that you said, that this ADU would park in that spot and
he would walk down the sidewalk to get to his unit, and that is to
say almost, in your own words, dedicating the parking place for an
11
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 6, 1995
ADU. Nichols stated, the access is going to be somewhere over
there. I am also in the process of trying to vacate that alley.
There has been a shed sitting in that alley for 60 years, and that
alley doesn't ever get used and hasn't even been opened until the
duplex was put in up there. Garton asked, and they are using it
for an access in light of that duplex? Nichols stated, yes. The
part I want to vacate doesn't change how they want use their alley
access at all.
Hunt stated, one other thing I would like to address, and it's
probably going to be a recommendation, why don't I make it
Condition ~13; we believe the extra sink in the bathroom could be
better used for storage. A two-sink bathroom for this size unit is
pretty ridiculous, when you think of it. Blaich stated, it's also
got a separate toilet and shower, too. Hunt stated, that doesn't
bother me so much. Kerr stated, it's more than we've ever seen in
an ADU, I think. Hunt stated, it leaves me to suspect that it is
designed for something other than ADU. I guess it is more of a
recommendation than anything else, from my point of view.
Johnson stated, these are Conditions of Approval, so, if you want
us to look at the building plans when they come through, if it
shows two sinks, and it was a recommendation, then he chose not to
take you up on it. If it is a Condition, then we would reject the
plan. Hunt asked, how does the rest of the Commission feel on this
issue? There was some discussion at random between Commission and
Nichols. Hunt stated, I would like to make it a Condition. Kerr
stated, if you want to make it a condition, Roger, I would be in
favor of that condition. Hunt, well, O.K. Condition ~13 for
removal of the extra sink in the bathroom and it is recommended
that that be replaced with storage or some other use.
Hunt stated, now, Condition 14, concerning the door. I'm open to
recommendations for a condition. Johnson added, "sliding door for
the accessory unit entry shall be changed to swinging door with as
much glass as possible." Buettow stated, it would have to meet the
code requirement of 1/10th the square footage of that entire
livingroom in the one door, it has to be that much glass. You are
going to need as much light as you can get in there; that's a large
space with only one source of light. That's the code requirement.
Johnson asked, add, "with glass to meet UBC code requirements".
Kerr stated, I think we are going beyond what we have to on this,
and I agree with Steve, that sliding glass doors can be
problematical. But, if someone is negligent, in terms of
maintenance, a swinging door is not going to open any better than a
sliding glass door. They have emergency access problems, anyway.
That's one where I would let the building code determine what
12
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 6, 1995
happens there. That's one where I think a recommendation where a
sliding glass door could be avoided and some other opening could be
utilized. I could go with a recommendation on that, but as a
Condition of Approval, I'm not prepared to make the decision about
sliding glass door versus swinging doors. The light is the issue
here as far as the Building Department is concerned. Hunt stated,
O.K. then, what about a Condition 14, that swinging door with as
much glass as possible be provided for the main entrance, however,
if UBC prohibits any feasible means of doing that, then the sliding
glass door would have to be it. Garton stated, that's a condition
though, Roger. Kerr added, we're not talking about a condition,
we're recommending. Garton stated, let's not make it a condition.
Hunt stated, there is no Condition 14. Nichols stated, I agree
with you on sliding doors and I will research and see what the best
thing is to put in there.
Kerr asked if there were any comments from the public, there were
none. He closed the public hearing.
TRUEMAN LOT 1SPAAHENDHENT
Kerr re-opened the public hearing for this item and said, I turn
it over to Mary.
Hary Lackner presented for staff and stated, Philip Bloemsma is
here and is representing the Trueman/Aspen Company. What they are
asking for is to add some uses to the Trueman/Aspen Lot 1, where
Clark's Market and that whole development is, and amending the SPA
agreement to allow these additional permitted and conditional uses.
As you can tell from the applicant's letter, they have requested
23 additional uses to be permitted as right-on-site. Staff is
going through each one of those items, and looking at the purpose
of the NC Zone District, in which this is located, and determining
what uses we feel would be appropriate in that location in the NC
Zone District, and then, what uses, perhaps should be conditional,
which should be permitted and which should not be permitted in that
zone. What we did was take the applicant's request and broke it
down into those categories. Our recommendation is in the
Recommendation Section, and I don't know how you want to go through
this; if you want to go through item by item or just start with
what is in the recommendation. We also have two, depending upon
how many changes the Planning and Zoning Commission makes,
recommended conditions to go with this SPA agreement. One has to
13
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 6, 1995
do with the sidewalk at Puppy Smith Street that we discussed with
other conditional use reviews in this area, and then, the other one
would be that he would have to file a new SPA agreement showing
changes, if any are done.
Philip Bloemsma stated, I don't have a presentation per se. I
would like to ask that the staff keep in mind the purpose of the NC
zone district when we make these decisions; that they are small,
convenience, retail establishments and they serve a daily or
frequent trade or service needs of the neighborhood. The sidewalk,
I don't know that that's a related issue.
Kerr stated, you read staff's recommendation as to which uses are
being permitted by right and which ones are going to be
conditional? Bloemsma answered, yes, I have. Kerr asked, what's
your opinion of that? Bloemsma answered, well, those that they
recommended, we accept, but I disagree with a few of them that
haven't been accepted, primarily, a sporting goods store. I feel
that this is a very active community, and the daily needs of skiers
and cyclists is important. I know I go to a sporting goods store
more often than I go to many other retail establishments in town,
and that was not a permitted use. I think, also, that a lot of the
conditional uses; I'm not sure I understand the idea behind the
conditional use. P&Z needs some controls, but from our
perspective, it adds another six weeks to two months to
negotiations with a perspective tenant and that's enough to scare
somebody away; to gamble that on whether or not they are going to
get approved from the P&Z. That's one of the conditional uses I
would like to see as permitted uses. We currently have 12 retail
spaces down at the shopping center and, I believe, there are 12
permitted uses there, two of which are redundant. One's a beauty
parlour and one's a hair salon, I believe it's called. We have the
ability to split it up even more than that and have more small,
convenience, retail stores. Right now, what's happening is, the
larger retailers are expanding and we are losing the smaller,
individual retailers; Clark's Market, Alpine Hardware, the liquor
store, they all want more space, whereas, the smaller, convenient
shops; sporting goods, book stores, this list we have come up with
here, as being squeezed out. They are not interested in the
spaces.
Garton stated, Phil, this is tough for me because we're so
concerned about expanding commercialism within the town anyway;
expanding commercial space. If you add more uses by right, for me,
we are turning it more and more into a commercial zone district;
just commercial core. However, I hear what you say about making it
14
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 6, 1995
so onerous for you that you add a lot more time for being able to
negotiate rents and that you are losing your mix. On the other
hand, we are here, as a Planning Commission, wanting the best for
the community. There are only two Neighborhood Commercial Zones,
everything that still goes in there is still reviewed because it is
going to start creeping. We have a very large commercial core, and
I'm sorry for the process time it takes, I don't know if we can
shorten that in any way to help out; you that are in the
Neighborhood Commercial, but I don't want to add anymore uses by
right to the zone at all. I haven't heard a good enough argument
for it.
Hunt stated, I have to agree with Sara. The thing that worries me
is the creeping of the C-1 uses taking over the SCI and NC space
down there, and the only way we can keep that creep from happening
is to review most of these things, unfortunately. That's where I'm
coming from. I will indicate that I, basically, agree with the
Planning Office memorandum.
Garton asked, you would add more uses by right though, do you
think? Hunt answered, well, are there really any uses by right
here? Lackner stated, there are six. Hunt said, oh, I do have a
problem with those or, at least, some of those. Hooney stated, it
says that allowed current Conditional Uses would be considered
Permitted Uses. Are those Conditional Uses that exist going to be
added by right, then? Lackner replied, staff's recommending that,
midway down the page, there's four items; the laundromat, garden
shop, hardware store, and paint and wallpaper store, those are
existing conditional uses. We are saying that those four would be
allowed by right. Kerr asked, I thought that you said that all of
your tenants were permitted uses? Bloemsma answered, we have 12
permitted uses in the NC Zone District currently. Lackner stated,
it says that he has the list of NC permitted, and then, conditional
uses, and currently, there is the lock shop down there, which is
not use listed at all in the zone. There is the hardware store and
the paint and wallpaper store, so he does have two for special
review for conditional use. Kerr asked, how many total uses do you
have down there? Bloesma answered, we have 12 retail spaces down
there, currently. Kerr stated, but the lock shop is not a
permitted use. Bloesma stated, it hasn't been for 15 years.
Kerr stated, it's there and I use it once in awhile. Hunt stated,
that is an SCI use though, isn't it? Well, the half of this is
SCI. Way back when, the ground level was supposed to be NC, the
lower level was supposed to be SCI. Now, what has it transitioned
to? Because SCI uses were permitted uses in the basement level of
15
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 6, 1995
the Trueman. I'm going to raise a great big flag here. I remember
Trueman so well, it's not funny.
Lackner stated, from what I know of Trueman is that it is all NC
uses. Hunt asked, how did we lose the SCI in the shuffle? That's
how Roger's Locksmith got in there, because he was an SCI use. So,
philosophically, that was approved, way back when, to start with.
It wasn't a hard and fast rule, we just wanted a balance; sure,
there would some NC uses in the basement, and some SCI uses up
above, but the idea was that you had both those uses in this area.
I'm not even in doubt about that. Garton stated, Roger, you can't
split zone like that; that may be your intent. Hunt stated, this
was an SPA, and yes, you can. I get upset with things lost in the
shuffle, because we are losing, essentially, a lot of uses, if we
have lost the ability to put SCI uses in there. Leslie Lamont of
staff asked, in the basement? Hunt replied, well, it wasn't a
hard-fast rule, in the basement, more or less, square foot area-
wise, when this was first approved, it was philosophically, the
square foot area which is in the basement, with the SCI uses.
There could be some SCI uses above, some NC below, but it was,
basically, split SCI and then, NC. Somehow, it seems to have
gotten lost in the shuffle.
Lamont stated, a lot of the old Trueman files; a lot of historical
files that sat out throughout this entire shopping center, have
been lost. In the past, when we were doing the Rio Grande, and
when Klm was researching, it has been very, very difficult to
figure out, historically, what has happened on this property. Hunt
stated, I have, absolutely, no problem with the lock shop with the
permitted use of an SCI use because part of this property was
supposed to be partially SCI. Kerr asked, what do we get if all
permitted uses of either SCI or NC are permitted on this SPA
property and all conditional uses of both SCI and NC are
conditional uses on this SPA property? Where does that get us?
Hary Lackner did some researching and stated, SCI permits limited
commercial and industrial uses including the following: vehicle
sales, appliance and equipment rentals, storage repair, automobile
repair, automobile washing, electrical and plumbing service shops,
commercial bakery, computer product sales and services, limited
industrial uses, including builders' supplies, industrial dry
cleaning plant and laundry, fabrication repair of building
materials and components, lumber yards, manufacturing repair of
electronics or sporting goods, printing and publishing plants,
telecommunication supply, typesetting, warehousing and storage,
shop craft industries and similar uses, artist studios with
16
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 6, 1995
optional accessory dwellings, and provided that they do not cause
traffic, noise, dust, fumes, odors, or those types of things.
Hunt stated, Clark's Bakery, the commercial bakery, way back when,
was considered an SCI use. That is why it was there; not an NC
use. Lackner added, as far as conditional uses, also, there is gas
station, dance studio, martial arts studio, catalog sales,
laundromat, photo studio, above ground fuel tanks. She said, what
we can do, is go back and research this "stuff" and bring it back
to you, and, I guess, I would like the rest of the Commission's
feeling; should we then, re-focus or look at doing just NC, SCI may
already exist. Any other feedback?
Mooney stated, I really don't think I like to expand it to the SCI
zone, and I don't think that ...Hunt stated, it is not expanding it
to that, though. Hooney replied, well, I think it did. Non-
conforming SCI uses there should be some kind of conditional uses,
in my mind, because they are existing, but to create more openings
for SCI elements, I don't think that's the neighborhood for that.
As far as what is in front of us, I, basically, think that these
could be conditional uses and by no means would I consider them as
permitted uses, 1 through 23; and by no means would consider any of
the conditional uses as permitted uses. I think that the
conditions of this application; the two conditions, definitely have
to apply.
Garton asked, Tim, are you agreeing with staff's recommendations
that a couple more be added? Hooney stated, I don't think anything
be a permitted use, at all. If these, 1-23, are, in my mind,
accepted at all, I would consider them as conditional uses. Garton
stated, but page 8, I guess, is what I am asking. Hunt stated,
there are things that are in 1-23 that I don't think are
appropriate. Garton stated, but page 8 is the staff's
recommendation after reviewing it. Hooney stated, I, basically,
don't feel that the conditional uses that exist there, should be
permitted uses, at all, and I wouldn't change the level of review
to make anything permitted anymore than there is now. And, I
certainly wouldn't expand it into any other zone than the NC zone.
Lackner asked Hooney, would you allow any more of those uses on
that list to be conditional uses? Hooney replied, to me, I think
the list on page 2, 1-23, could all be conditional uses. Hunt
stated, I don't agree. Hooney stated, I will eliminate anything
you want; the smaller the list the better, as far as I'm concerned,
because, I too, feel .... well, you know how I feel.
17
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 6, 1995
Kerr stated, one possible solution then, would be taking staff's
list of 6, and then also, staff's list of 8 (assuming everybody
agrees with those), and then, the list of 4, are already
conditional uses. If we took those 14, and made those all
conditional uses, and none of them permitted uses, that, in affect,
is what you are getting at? That, in affect, would be taking 14 out
of the 23, and saying, we will approve those as conditional uses,
but not adding anything to the permitted use list. Hooney stated,
that's the theory of thought I came from. Garton stated, that's
what I was saying, too, Bruce, that I wouldn't mind expanding the
list, but no more additional uses by right. Kerr stated, I don't
have a particular problem with proceeding that way, I also,
wouldn't have a particular problem in approving, changing lock
shops, or anything like that, for permitted use. It's been there
for, gosh, about 15 years.
Hunt stated, my point is, that that is an SCI use, and that's the
reason it got in there in the first place; some, not all, SCI uses
were permitted in this area, and were encouraged in this area,
because there was a square footage area so that this much square
feet should be SCl-type uses, not all are permitted in the SCI
zone.
Hooney stated, I think the neighborhood has changed significantly,
and now with the development of the Aspen Airport Business Center,
I think we have an alternative. So, I think that more neighborhood
commercial, conditional uses, are something that I'm leaning
towards. Kerr stated, Roger, look at the zoning map, it appears
that the NC and SCI are split, but they are not split up and down,
they are split sideways. Garton stated, maybe, that's what he is
indicating, is what Bruce is saying. Kerr, I think staff needs to
research that issue; that may not have anything to do with what we
decide to do about the conditional uses.
Kerr asked, is there anyone from the public that is here to speak
on this item? I did open the public hearing. There were none.
Kerr closed the public hearing.
Bloemsma stated, I like the recommendation that Tim had about the
14 permitted uses, the list of 14 being conditional uses, and I
would propose that we add two more to that; one, a bank, and one, a
sporting goods store. Kerr asked, are those actual perspective
tenants that you've got? Bloemsma answered, yes. Lackner stated,
you reviewed a satellite branch of Pitkin County Bank. As far as
sporting good stores, there is a lot of competition in the CC and
C-1.
18
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 6, 1995
Bloemsma stated, I still go back to what the purpose of the NC zone
district is. I don't think the Commission is here to deny
competition, I think we are here to serve this purpose; the purpose
is, to allow small, convenience retail business, that support daily
or frequent trade or services to the community. As I said before,
I think a sporting goods store fits that to the tee. That's my
opinion. Hunt stated, you are talking about a lot of people going
there daily, as opposed to a smaller group having to go daily for
daily-type needs. In other words, a grocery store has almost
daily-type needs for resident population. I'm hard-put to see in my
daily needs, having to go to a sporting goods shop. Bloemsma said,
or a lock shop. Hunt replied, a lock shop is SCI, and that was
allowed in that zone. I'm going to bounce back to that because I
am adamant about that, and I believe, at this point, we need more
research into this issue to go any further. We had a major fight
to retain that SCI square footage, way back when, and I think it's
appropriate to keep it now, just as that lock shop is appropriate
there. Bloemsma stated, I still believe a sporting goods store is
as of frequent use as any of the other current 12 permitted uses on
the list. Hunt stated, what's not on the list, these are just to
be added on the list, what's not on the list is, drug store, for
example, which I think is a permitted use on the list, isn't it?
Bloemsma said, yes, it is. Hunt stated, in other words, we're not
showing the whole list here. Bloemsma said, Exhibit B. Hunt said,
maybe, I missed it.
Garton asked, how did we approve the bank, if it's not a
conditional use? Lackner replied, it came under business and
professional office. Garton said, O.K.
Hunt stated, I, for one, don't want to go further until the rest of
the Commission has the background on this property, and why it
happened; I just don't want to be the only voice "hollering out of
the wilderness", here. So, it looks like I'm going to be in
disagreement with Tim, because I just know where this came from.
Kerr stated, I don't think you are in disagreement, I think Tim
would be for the shortest list possible. I don't think you are
proposing all 23. Hooney stated, I would like to cut it down as
much as possible. I guarantee you, I'm not going to create any
opportunity for commercial growth, if I don't have to, and I think
that the split uses of the neighborhood commercial attitude, we can
pretty much require that these aren't going to be chain stores,
19
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 6, 1995
these are not going to be tourist-oriented stores, this isn't going
to be a traffic pattern that is going to compete with the
commerical core
and the high tech uses that are on Cooper Street and on the malls.
I think that if there are some needs in the neighborhood commercial
area, that the Trueman property is the place where we should expand
them. I am, by no means, interested in creating a broader aspect
of commercial development, at all, "Rog", and I want as small a
list, as tight a circle, as possible. I really think that the
neighborhood commercial zone is my umbrella.
Hunt stated, my only comment about that, basically, is, you are
saying neighborhood commercial, and I understand that, but so many
of the arguments, when this was going through was to retain space
for some, not all, service commercial industrial uses, like T.V.
repair. Hooney answered, I definitely think that Henry's is
abusive, I definitely think that Velo is abusive, they are selling
as many snowboards as Aspen Sports, and I think we ought to go in
there and get them to comply. Hunt stated, the point is, square
footage-wise, philosophically, this was supposed to be SCI uses for
that amount of square footage. Hooney replied, the neighborhood
has changed significantly, I go back to what we have at the Airport
Business Center, I now think that that's the space. Hunt stated, I
don't think that that is necessarily an appropriate space for
Roger's Locksmith, yes it would be, but there's nothing wrong with
Roger's Locksmith there, there is nothing wrong with the T.V.
Repair that used to there, there's nothing wrong with the Clark's
Bakery, which is an SCI use. The point is, the problem is SCI uses
are not the highest and best usage that they can get their money
out of, so, of course, they are always interested in getting that
space to a higher and better usage, but I think there are those
uses that we need to accommodate in this community and that space
was originally designated for it, and I want to retain that
capability.
Kerr stated, we've got one of several different ways we can proceed
on this issue. One would be, to table it, asking staff to review
the history of the SCI/NC as it relates to this parcel, so we'll
know what's going on, and then, what we want to do, with those SCI
uses that were part of the original SPA. Roger's Lockshop is one
specific example where, maybe, that needs to be a conditional or
permitted use within NC, we can kind of forget about the SCI that
was originally done, we have to assume that is not very clear.
Another possible way to proceed is to adopt some additional
permitted and/or conditional uses out of the list of 23 or 14 or
some combination thereof, ranging all the way up to the full list
2O
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 6, 1995
of 23. I think, if we go through a tabling process, perhaps
something that might be helpful to staff, is to take that list of
23 or 24 or 25, and with each use indicate which of those uses we
would find acceptable as either a permitted or conditional use
within the NC district, so they can have some guidance.
Chuck Roth stated, well, it's kind of sideways for you, but on that
second conditional approval on the sidewalk; 180 days from today is
about the end of the excavation permit, and I wonder if we could
key the sidewalk construction to any certificate of occupancy on a
new use granted by this proposed change?
Bloemsma asked, what has changed since the last meeting we had
regarding the bank, as far as, how is this appropriate for the
Commission? When we addressed the bank issue, the sidewalk was a
separate issue, and I'm not sure I understand what's changed since
then, and why the City is recommending that this be conditional.
Kerr stated, I don't understand that, either. I don't understand
how the sidewalk is related to text amendments. Lackner answered,
because they are getting liberalized, or more uses allowed on site,
we feel that we want to go back to the original and say, these are
some deficits in the original subdivision that we want to "beef
up"; the sidewalk for the pedestrian circulation in the area.
Roth added, the Neighborhood Advisory Committee met last week and
they are asking us to try to get sidewalk along the Post Office, so
the intensity of interest in sidewalks has increased.
Garton stated, however, Chuck, what I am meaning is, I don't want
anymore permitted uses, I only want conditional uses. If I only
approve this list for conditional uses, I cannot ask them to put in
a sidewalk. Lackner replied, they would, essentially, expand the
range of commercial uses... What is happening there, since that
project was developed, a lot of the affordable housing is located
on that side of the town and people come through this project;
Trueman, and including the Post Office, and encourages pedestrian
use. So, that's why we see now, there is a need for a sidewalk in
that area. It's shown that both sides of the street need a
sidewalk. Bloemsma stated, Trueman/Aspen Company would like to see
a sidewalk there. Garton replied, but until, Phil comes in and
says, here is another conditional use I'm asking for, then, I'll
ask for the sidewalk. I don't want to ask it for while he's just
expanding the list. Lackner stated, then, you are tagging it to
one. Then the bank will come in and say, my bank doesn't
necessitate me to put in a sidewalk, but we're saying is, since
this is a liberalization of all uses in that lot, we should put
21
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 6, 1995
that condition on, so it's not going to one "guy", asking for one
conditional use.
Hooney stated, I think it's appropriate, myself, because what is
going to happen is, that the number of different kinds of services
is going to increase, if we expand the list. What they will do, as
soon as they move someone out, they'll cut the floor space in half
and have two shops, with two separate entrances, which will create
more traffic patterns, as far as I'm concerned. I think that if we
don't put ourselves in a position to provide for those traffic
patterns now, we're not going to get it in the future. If we,
basically, put a bunch more opportunities and don't plan for the
traffic patterns now, and take advantage of having this on the
table now, I don't think we're going to get the fundamental
opportunity to put in a sidewalk again. I don't think a sidewalk
is that elaborate; if we were asking for something that was in
excess to handle some kind of traffic pattern, turnarounds, or
road cuts, or something else, then I could see that that was
excessive, but a sidewalk, to me, is the fundamental key to open
these commercial opportunities, and expand the number of people
that are coming there for one time, in-and-out type, "I need a key
made", opportunities.
Garton asked, how do we tie this into Chuck's request? Bloemsma
stated, you don't want to allow us anything, and you want us to
build the sidewalk. I don't understand that. Kerr stated, I think
that's the point in which we tie it in, is the SPA amendment, it's
not the text amendment, itself, it's the SPA. Chuck, is there
anything magic about the 180 days, is there any reason why we
couldn't say 120 days, or 90 days? Roth answered, I was looking at
getting it done this year. Kerr stated, that's what I'm saying, if
we were to end up tabling it to a future meeting. If we're worried
about getting it done this season, there's nothing to prohibit us
from saying 120 days. Roth stated, it would just depend on when
the final day of approval was. I was thinking of keying it to
October 31, which is the end of the excavation permit.
Bloemsma stated, before we close this, I probably think it is a
good idea to table it and find out what the zoning is downstairs,
and I would like to ask the Commission to explain to me the purpose
of the NC zone district, as I read it, I'm not sure, and I'm
getting some conflicting ideas as to what your ideas of the NC zone
district are. Haybe you could tell me what you feel the NC zone
district is. We have 37,000 square feet of retail space down
there, we have 12 permitted uses. We could have one big WalMart
down there, is that what we want? Lackner stated, you can't have a
22
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 6, 1995
big WalMart, because we have restrictions. Bloemsma stated, I
understand that. Kerr stated, I think the key words, are one;
small, convenience, part of the neighborhood, reduce traffic
generation, mitigate traffic circulation, and I think that's where
the problem comes in with the sporting goods store, for example.
They say a sporting goods store falls outside that. I think if you
key in on those words, those are the parts of the NC that we are
trying to preserve and keep that integrity. Hooney stated, I'm not
suggesting that you do that with your space, but I think we can
coin that as the "Don Fleischer rule of thumb". Bloemsma stated, I
don't want to be compared to the other buildings in town, I feel
the Trueman/Aspen Company is loyal to the community, and I believe
we've shown that and we want to continue that. Lackner stated, I
think what you need to look at, and staff tried to do this in the
memorandum, is to identify the uses that were proposed by the
applicant, where else these uses are allowed. We don't want to
open up NC to be just to be just an extension of CC or C-1. That's
where our recommendation has gone down to, what meets the purpose,
and what may not be accommodated elsewhere. Hunt stated, I just
have to put in a word for preserving the SCI space in this area.
If you make just SCI uses, conditional uses, for Neighborhood
Commercial, that basically, gives them the benefit of saying, oh, I
don't have to accommodate any SCI spaces in here, NC spaces are
higher and better usage, so there goes all the SCI, folks. There
goes Roger's Locksmith, there goes the laundry, and things like
that.
MOTION
Hunt stated, I move to table action pending staff's researching the
SCI issue on the Trueman property until June 20th, 1995, and
continue the public hearing. Garton seconded. Vote commenced,
vote was unanimous in favor, motion carried.
Discussion of Motion
Kerr stated, I would just make a recommendation to all commission
members to give staff the list of what you can live with and what
you cannot live with in so far as the NC zoning, pending what comes
out of the SCI research.
Kerr closed the public portion of the meeting.
23
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 6, 1995
MOCKLIN PROPERTY - REZONING, SUBDIVISION,
AND SPECIAL REVIEW FOR FLOOR AREA RATIO, PARKING,
AND OPEN SPACE
Kerr opened the public hearing.
Leslie Lamont presented for staff and asked for the applicant's
public notice. (Attached in record). Lamont stated, the
application before you is requesting a Subdivision, Rezoning and
Special Review. What I would like to do first, since there is a
long history to Peter Hocklin's property, is go through with you
that history on what has gone on with his property, in the past,
and most recently. Sunny Vann is representing Peter and Monica
Hocklin in this process.
Peter has an apartment building on this property that currently
exists of 8 units. Those units were found as legal units when the
property was still in the County. The County, by resolution, in
1982, found that the 8 units were, in fact, legal units. The
property was then annexed into the City in approximately 1988/1989
when the Centennial/Hunter Creek neighborhood and area was annexed
into the City. At the time of that annexation; the City had 90
days to re-zone any property that comes into the City, and the
applicant was requesting a multi-family zoning because he had 8
dwelling units on his property. The Commission and the Council
agreed that they would go with a R-15A zoning which was a new zone
district that was, in fact, created for that area. They were zoned
R-15A, and did not want to re-zone it multi-family until such time
as there was a redevelopment plan proposed. So what that did, was
allow Peter his 8 legal units, but it made the building non-
conforming. Our code does not allow you to expand a non-conforming
use in a zone district. So, starting in about 1989, and proceeding
onto 1990, Peter pursued a re-zoning of his property to R/HF,
originally, it was ultimately re-zoned to R/HFA which is consistent
with multi-family re-zoning up in that neighborhood. What
happened, finally, after City Council, was rather than re-zone the
entire, almost, four acres to R/MFA, Peter and Sunny agreed to
carve out a piece of the property surrounding the apartment
building and re-zone that R/HFA. Council's requirement was that up
to 50,000 square feet of land surrounding the apartment building
would be re-zoned R/HFA. It was not subdivided, it was just that
24
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 6, 1995
they filed the plat showing that a portion of the property was to
be re-zoned R/HFA.
Lamont continued saying, In 1990 we passed Ordinance 1, which
required that when demolition or replacement occurred, that the
applicant would have to mitigate the housing that was torn down.
This specifically applied, not only do we have our ADU program, but
it applied to multi-family dwelling units stating that when you
tear down and replace a multi-family structure, you had to replace,
in site, 50 percent of the existing bedrooms and 50 percent of the
existing square footage, back on site as deed restricted housing.
So, Mr. Mocklin sought a Planning Director interpretation; Diane
Moore was the Planning Director at the time, Jed Caswell was our
City Attorney, and they requested an interpretation of that section
of the code that allowed demolition and replacement. In the code,
at the time, in 1990, and currently in the code, even with our
growth management revisions, if one tears down and replaces, and
complies with Ordinance 1, and our Housing Hitigation Program, that
demolition and replacement is exempt from competition, and the
replacement units are exempt from coming out of our allotment
pools. That is an exemption by the Planning Director. In 1990,
and prior to our recent revisions of the GHQS, we didn't keep track
of the number of additional affordable housing units that we were
adding to our housing enventory in the City. As you know, with our
growth management revisions, we now have a specific allotment pool
for affordable housing and we have an allotment pool for free
market. However, the Planning Director exemption section in the
code, the revised section, still allows demolition and replacement,
and those replacement units are not deducted from the allotment
pool. The section of the code is silent on what we do if someone
is adding back affordable housing that happens to be additional
units than what were originally on the site. We can get into that
later on in our discussion, because that is one of my issues that I
pointed out to you. So, during this Planning Director
interpretation, Sunny was asking the Planning Department and the
City Attorney's Office whether he had to technically, and actually,
comply with the letter of the code, and actually tear down his
building to realize his replacement credits. Remember, there are 8
legal units on the property. If that building were torn down, 8
free market units could be placed on the property, in any
configuration, exempt from growth management, and exempt from the
allotment pool. Sunny's argument was, why should we be required to
tear down a perfectly good building to realize our replacement
credit when, in fact, to realize our replacement credit, we are
going to have to build back deed restricted affordable housing on
the property. So, his interpretation request was, can we,
25
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 6, 1995
basically, go ahead and deed restrict the existing units and,
therefore, freeing up our free market replacement credit on the
site. I believe, the letter that Sunny addressed to the Planning
Department and the response from Diane Moore, is in the
application. In addition, what else is in the application, which
is a really good history, is Jedd Caswell's letter to the City
Council explaining the history of this project when we were going
through the re-zoning process. So, the Planning Director found,
through the Planning Director interpretation process, that we would
not want to be in the process of encouraging someone to tear down
their building to realize their replacement credits.
We also recognize that there are very few pieces of property in the
City that have the ability to do that. 204 E. Durant, our last
multi-family replacement program that we saw, could not have
maintained their employee housing on site and built their free
market units on site easily. Peter's property, being so large, it
was an obvious question to have asked us for this Planning Director
interpretation. The Planning Director found that he could, in
fact, deed restrict the existing housing as employee housing and
free up his replacement credits. In fact, what we felt we were
getting, we were getting a more direct, one-for-one, number of
units only. One-for-one replacement, whereas, if the building were
torn down, we would probably realize less units, approximately the
same amount of bedroom and the same amount of square footage, but
they would probably be re-configured in less number of units. So,
that's the history behind this.
Kerr asked, what's the estimated useful life of the existing unit?
That's the only fly that I see. Lamont answered, when we were
doing this Planning Director interpretation, we did a site
inspection and a walk-through of the units to determine what kind
of units we were going to talk about. Now, any acceptance of
existing units as deed restricted units, they have to meet all
Housing Office specifications and guidelines, as far as
habitability and quality of the unit, and UBC. If there are items
that need to be taken care of, it is the applicant's responsibility
to upgrade the units. We walked through the building for several
reasons; we needed to determine tap fees and we needed to determine
whether these units were, in fact, appropriate units. The building
is in very good condition. Some of the units are below-grade, some
of the other unit are partially below grade. There are two units
that are fully above grade, those are the two units the applicant
is not proposing to deed restrict. We are not talking a building
that is 204 E. Durant, that's ready to fall down anyway. So, in
26
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 6, 1995
giving you a little bit of history, let me talk about what we have
existing there.
Lamont stated, currently, Mr. Mocklin owns two parcels of land; he
owns a parcel of land that is on the other side of Gibson Avenue,
that basically, Spring Street runs through.
Sunny Vann described the 3-1/2 acre parcel with assistance of a
map, and he stated the parcel is separated by the plat of right-of-
way from a smaller parcel which, basically, encompasses portions of
Spring Street and a steep hillside. Vann said, it shows up on the
survey and it's part of your application package, but it's not part
of the application which Hr. Hocklin has submitted.
Lamont said, right now, there's an 8 unit apartment building on the
piece of property, and when it came time to actually do the mapping
and surveying for re-zoning that portion of the property to R/HFA
it was reduced to about 34,000 square feet, the property that's
zoned R/HFA. Vann added, it is roughly that portion of the
property containing the existing building that's outlined in pink
(referring to the map). Lamont stated, so, there are 8 units and
the units range from 1,730 sq. ft. down to 370 sq. ft. in size,
they total 15 bedrooms, and in addition, there is a dedicated
pedestrian trail along the western boundary. Other than that, the
property is entirely vacant. What Hr. Hocklin is proposing to do,
is to subdivide his property into 7 parcels. Six free market
parcels, and the seventh would be the parcel that would incorporate
the multi-family apartment building. Then, he would like to re-
zone and, this is actually my request, that he re-zone lot 7 to AH.
I am requesting a re-zoning to AH because I think it will further
reflect the deed restricted units on the parcel and further
institutionalize that we have affordable housing on Parcel 7. And,
he is proposing to deed restrict 6 of those 8 units to affordable
housing on Parcel 7.
Kerr asked, is Lot 7 all of the peak? Vann answered, yes. Kerr
asked, what is that line that comes out midways, comes down
straight and then takes a right angle (referring to the map). Vann
replied, pink is the piece that is presently zoned R/HFA, plus a
little bit around the edges of it. This is the existing building,
this is an irrigation ditch. Kerr asked, what is the line above
the ditch? Vann answered, that is the parking lot for this
building.
Lamont stated, if Parcel 7 were to be successfully re-zoned to AH,
then we would need to establish by special review, parking on the
27
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 6, 1995
site, and the open space on the site. The applicant is requesting
to establish the size of the parcel so it fits with the allowable
floor area ratios in AH zone district for multi-family. Right now,
the size of the parcel and the existing floor area doesn't match
what we allow in the AH zone district, so the applicant is actually
asking to reduce the parcel down to possibly 32,000 sq. ft. so it
fits with the existing floor area of the building. So, there are
15 parking spaces on site and there's over 60 percent of the Parcel
7 that is open space. That is also something that you all will
need to do, establish by special review, parking in open space.
Garton stated, he is also requesting that we actually deed restrict
all eight of the units. Vann stated, seven. Garton said, well,
there are 8 units within the building and he was proposing to deed
restrict seven. Vann stated, six, and they've asked for seven.
Lamont stated, one of the issues that was outlined in the
memorandum; the applicant proposes a one-for-one, deed restricting
six units for six free market lots. Several of the units do not
comply with the Housing guidelines and as they are existing units
there is not much we can do to expand the units. So, the Housing
Office and staff are requesting that a seventh unit be deed
restrictive to help us out because they do not comply with our
guidelines.
Buettow stated, according to Dave Tolen's evaluation of these
units; of the six, only one meets the minimum size requirements.
Vann answered, they vary in size, some are closer to the
requirements. Buettow stated, only one meet the requirements of
the six. Vann answered, he did point out in his memorandum that to
compensate for that we are deed restricting them below the
guidelines which we would be entitled to if we were to tear them
down and reconstruct. We are deed restricting more square footage,
if we deed restrict 7, than would be required under an Ordinance 1,
and if we went out and simply tore it down. So, we are getting
more commercial square footage deed restricted and more residential
square footage deed restricted because you are getting more unit
and you are getting them in a lower income category than would be
required under Ordinance 1; you are having them brought up to code
in those cases where they are required, and they will meet the
Housing Authority's requirements. So, that's why Dave's supporting
the idea because, all-in-all, it's a good deal.
Lamont continued saying, I just want to reiterate the issues I
pointed out in my memorandum and tell you some of the changes I
would like to make to the memorandum. Then, I will turn it over
28
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 6, 1995
the Sunny for questions. So, seven units, not six, that was one of
my issues. As I pointed out earlier, the code is silent on how we
deal with additional AH units. Now, we have affordable housing
allocation for 43 units a year that these six or seven units would
come out of. However, in my discussions with Dave Tolen, we feel
pretty strongly that when the demolition replacement was exempted
by the Planning Director and exempted by the pool, although it had
to comply with our Housing and replacement programs, that we missed
the fact that we may get additional units on site that would have
to come out of our pool. We are recommending one of three ways to
go about this, and I talked this over with John Worcester, also.
One way we can do this is we pull it out of our affordable housing
pool. The Housing Office is reluctant to support that
recommendation because they are very protective of their pool and
they feel that if these units were torn down and replaced, we
probably wouldn't get as many units, but we would probably get
bigger units, above grade units, and they would meet our guidelines
more readily than these units do. So, they are reluctant to just
say, take it out of the Housing pool.
The other approach we could take is that we could draft a code
amendment that, basically, says, if one is complying with Ordinance
1 or the Housing Replacement Program, all those units that are
replaced and go back, including your mitigation units, are exempt,
not only by the Director, but are exempt from the Housing pool.
Third, and I talked this over with the City Attorney because in
that section of the code, it says, you are exempt from multi-family
housing if you comply with the Housing Replacement Program, and
that is found in that exemption section by the Planning Director,
where it says, are not deducted from the pool. So, I asked our
City Attorney if that was kind of a defacto acknowledgement of what
is exempt and what is not. He felt that that could be appropriate,
but he wanted our review bodies to also lend us some guidance on
this. So, this is why this is in your memorandum and it is an
issue.
Lamont stated, with Hr. Hocklin's proposal, we have ways with
working with that. The last two issues I pointed out in my
memorandum, I am very concerned about the significant natural
vegetation on this property and some of the terrain features that
are found. I am continuing to work with the applicant to better
define the building envelopes, with the condition that nothing
happens outside the building envelopes; no draining, no excavation,
except for utilities that need to cut through the property. As far
as building the homes, I would like to further define those
building envelopes before we ultimately sign off on all of this.
29
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 6, 1995
The property has been staked with those building envelopes as are
shown and are submitted in your application. We blocked the site
once, we've identified some features that we want to preserve;
there's more features that I want to preserve than the applicant
wants to preserve. Kerr asked, are you talking about sagebrush, or
what? Lamont answered, I'm talking about both things; the
requirement that no further development or construction or fences
or hottubs or anything like that, happen outside the building
envelopes. We would, then, be preserving a significant buffer of
natural vegetation between these building envelopes. In this area
here (referring to map), there is a large grove of cottonwoods,
some are dead, some are not 6 inches in caliper; we are looking for
a better site plan that can identify the trees that are important,
there's aspen right in here. So, that is why the building envelope
is an issue, because Sunny and I, the landscape architect, and the
engineer, need to go back out on-site and talk about what is a
realistic building envelope and how we can push and pull some of
these envelopes to preserve some of these features. For example,
we have talked about Lot 5, move it closer and make it a little bit
more narrow, so we could preserve, at least, the front half of this
knolle. The majority of building envelope 6 is not in the ridge,
it's back behind the ridge, and then, there's some nice little
features over here that we've talked about pulling the buildings
down lower so they aren't up on top of the hill which would make
for more massive building feel on that. Kerr asked, these
envelopes are to be accessed from the north, I guess, or most of
them? Lamont answered, right. There is one private drive that is
being proposed that will access all the lots with a fire access
easement which serves as a drive to all three, but will be the area
where any emergency vehicles will turn around in. So, we need a
note on the plat indicating no parking along the access. Kerr
asked, and the garages would not be in the rear? Lamont stated,
the garages would probably be in the rear, off of here (referring
to map).
Vann stated, it might be helpful, in a second, if, when she
(Lamont) brings up this last point, to let me take you through the
site plan very quickly and how we laid it out, and then we can get
into specifics. I think it will help you to understand why we did
it the way we did.
Lamont stated, speaking of the neighborhood character guidelines
and subdivision, Chuck and I have been going back and forth on
whether this should be a private drive or a public street. If it
is a public street we have some pretty strict standards on what the
public street needs to be, etc. Chuck can make that argument,
3O
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 6, 1995
whether it needs to be a public street or not, and why we need to
spend the City money. However, I do agree with Chuck, that the
plans that were submitted; a. do not indicate any sort of
pedestrian way off of this private drive, whether it is a
meandering trail, not a five foot concrete sidewalk, but something
that clearly indicates that this is for pedestrians, even though
this is a private road. Secondly, I've been thinking further about
what Chuck was talking about; one thing that we lose when we don't
require the streets to be public is we lose perception of the
access to these streets. This is a subdivision within an existing
neighborhood and our subdivision criteria talks about streets and
pedestrian ways being compatiable and an efficient landuse pattern
with the existing neighborhood. So, my last issue is, that I would
like a condition of approval on this proposal, that there is no
signage on here, such as delineating private drive, keep out, no
trespassing, and things like that. I think it also goes along with
ASCP being a character based plan and it talks about new
development that is consistent and compatible with our
neighborhoods, and character of our community, and also, our
neighborhood character guidelines, it talks about fitting in with
your surrounding neighborhood.
Sunny Vann made a map presentation explaining the zoning,
landscaping, parking. Vann said, as you drop down Gibson these
envelopes become, essentially invisible, although you may see
portions or depending on the house that is ultimately built there.
The idea, here, was to designate a site specific building envelope
as Leslie pointed out, preserve the existing vegetation located
outside of the envelope. That is not objectionable to the
applicant, we are willing add that as a condition of approval and
include it in our subdivision development agreement.
Vann stated, the most significant issue that Leslie raised; we have
not considered this a gated subdivision, and I don't believe Hr.
Hocklin plans on developing this immediately, the intent was to
secure approvals for the property. I haven't envisioned putting a
stone wall around this thing, and I share Leslie's concerns about
the concept of a gated, private community. I'm a little concerned
about making it a condition of approval, there's nothing in our
subdivision regulations which pertain to that, but I think what
I'll do tonight, since Hr. Hocklin is out of the country, is simply
note our concern about it becoming a condition of approval, and
we'll deal with it in subsequent stages of review. I think, if
that is a concern of the City, that we should simply specify, as
part of our regulations, that we will not allow, not private roads,
but private non-accessible subdivisions within the City limits, but
31
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 6, 1995
that's a separate issue and I don't know how Mr. Mocklin feels
about it, and I think we should wait, for the record.
Vann said, these building envelopes, because Leslie is requiring
that development be precluded outside the envelope, are slightly
over-sized because we don't want to have to come in and modify the
envelope everytime someone wants to put a swing set or sandbox or
landscaping, or anything else that goes along with the development
of a single-family home. Vann showed on the map how the single-
family homes were set back so as not to block each other's view; he
showed access points, parking, and grade. Vann said, Leslie has
asked that we provide her with a tree survey, there are some small
strands of trees here, most of them are not over 6 inches, a few
aspen over 6 inches, there are some cottonwoods in the public
right-of-way here that are over 6 inches, and there are a couple
back in this corner here (referring to map). There are,
essentially, no mature trees that will be lost in the development
of the individual homes. There is some strands of trees that would
be affected by the access road and we will outline where those are
and it is our intent to provide landscaping to offset any loss of
those trees.
Garton asked, will you show us the locations of the Pine Creek Bus
Stop and the Hunter Creek driveway cuts? Vann showed on the map
where the locations above were. (Referring to the map), Vann
stated, we didn't perceive this as a street, we did not propose a
sidewalk, per se, along this, but Leslie's point is well-taken and
I don't see any reason why we couldn't incorporate in this area
here, some type of surface that we could maintain and plow for
people here to move through the project. Kerr asked, an internal
pedestrian way, is that what you are talking about? Vann answered,
yes, I hate to use sidewalk, that envisions curb, flat sidewalk,
concrete.
Kerr said, Sunny, explain why there's no further development
potential on Lot 7. Vann answered, when we re-zoned the property,
this was the only parcel in the whole annexation that was not zoned
a use. The record reflects, Tom Baker's minutes reflect, they were
concerned about re-zoning it RMF, and they would prefer re-zoning
it until such time as an application was submitted. When we went
to request to re-zone this, the compromise that we ended up with,
is just the portion of the existing building to be re-zoned and
that it would be sized to accommodate the existing FAR of the
building, plus 5-10 percent expansion to take care of minor changes
in the building from time to time. If this is RMF, that's one-to-
one; AH, it's a smaller parcel, so this is sized to fit the
32
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 6, 1995
existing FAR, plus 5 or 10 percent, I can't remember which it is,
so there's no ability to add FAR to this building, given the size
of this, unless someone was to come in and ask to change the
allowable FAR under the special review process. Kerr stated,
that's what I'm getting at. Five or ten years from now, if
somebody wants to tear down that building, albeit, it's a good
building now, if somebody else wants to come in and they've got
32,000 sq. ft. of land that's zoned AH. Well, within the AH zone
you're permitted a certain kind of mix, and what I am thinking of
is, what might happen. Vann responded saying, there's one other
thing that controls it, and in this case, the way the AH zoning is
set up for parcels of 27,000 or slightly larger, the minimum area
requirements for the bedroom mix are substantially greater than
smaller age parcels. Kerr stated, what I am getting at is, are you
willing to deed restrict Lot 7 in such a way as to say there will
never be more than seven affordable units, for example, and the one
free market. Vann answered, frankly, I've never really thought
about it, I could certainly ask Mr. Mocklin. I don't think the
City would be better served, since you have absolute control over
AH, that if, for some reason, somebody wanted to redevelop it that
you might come up with a different plan. Kerr stated, what I don't
want is more than one free market unit on Lot 7. Vann said, oh, I
see what you are saying, so you could do 70-30; technically,
someone could come in, if they could buy all the units, and if they
increase the number of employee housing units, they could increase
the number of free market, but there's no FAR available. Kerr
stated, just so you know where I'm coming from.
Lamont stated, those seven units are mitigation for the free market
units. If someone was proposing additional free market units on
Parcel 7, they would have to, then, build additional housing to get
that; but, I agree with what you are saying, and I think we need to
address that in subdivision agreement, subdivision plat, and
everything. Vann stated, we never envisioned creating
substantial.. Kerr stated, yes, but I envisioned it. You'll think
of it later. Vann said, it is certainly something we can talk
about with Mr. Mocklin, I would like to look at my numbers too, I
think Leslie is correct, that based on the current density
provisions, there is no way of expansion capability in this. Kerr
stated, just so we address it. Hy second question, you talked
about the views for Lots 1 through 6, but you really didn't talk
about the views for those people in the apartment buildings. Vann
replied, it's, actually, quite good. I'm not going to sit here and
tell you that they will not see development in front of them, but
the lots are extremely large, the setbacks of open space were
generous; when you enter this building your perception of this
33
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 6, 1995
space is all of this (referring to map). The view is probably
better than any other affordable housing in town, in terms of what
you can see.
Kerr asked, what kind of heights do you envision on Lots 1 through
6? Vann answered, there is no proposal at the moment, for the bulk
of the lots, there are no site specific plans. They would comply
with the height limits imposed under the existing R15 zoning, which
I think, is, 25 feet, plus 5 feet to the peak of a pitched roof,
(Kerr stated, that's been changed), they would comply with the FAR
regulations that are in affect at time of issuance of a building
permit, they will be smaller than originally estimated because
Leslie informs me that this easement will have to be subtracted
from lot area for FAR purposes, and I also believe that the new FAR
regulation contemplates requiring steep slopes, or slopes over 30
percent, to be subtracted, as well. So, there are portions of this
property where the slopes are such that they would further reduce
the FAR. If I had to guess, then, after you take this out, that
we're probably in the 3,500 to 4,000 range, just guessing, and
depending upon how the FAR regulations work out, but this is a
25,000 sq. ft. lot.
Garton stated, like Bruce, it doesn't make sense for this to have a
street presence, but what do we do about the community plan? There
is no pedestrian presence with these houses. Vann answered, even
if you pushed them all the way to the front, you wouldn't have a
pedestrian presence. Garton said, I know, and it is a very unique
site, and I actually don't mind them, Leslie, being back on the
slope because it is going to reduce the house. Lamont stated,
that's why I'm working with Sunny on defining where his front yard
was. You can pick, you have a public road and a private road, you
can pick whichever is your front yard, and we agreed with Sunny in
picking along Gibson Avenue to being the front yard because that
gives you a greater setback. Vann stated, the other thing, I think
that one could argue, is that this is an area that is perceived to
be very dense, but obviously, this is a developable parcel, it is
3-1/2 acres with just some units on it. By pulling it back, and
reducing the visability of the structures, I think it goes a long
way to reducing the perception of additional development in this
neighborhood. I think there's a very good argument that this could
be re-zoned to RMF, everything around it RMF, and it could be
developed for multi-family purposes.
Garton stated, somehow, in the approval of this, I want to
acknowledge to the Council and to the community, that we realize
that this does not fit the guidelines of what we are trying to do
34
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 6, 1995
with the neighborhood guidelines. Kerr stated, I would say this is
one of the arguments against universal application. Lamont stated,
when the individual homes come in and pull their building permit
they need to follow our Residential Design Standards and our
checklist and everything else. Garton stated, what is this street,
pedestrian presence, if we have a pedestrian way in there, we're
going to face garage doors. Lamont said, I understand what you are
saying but, actually, I'm perceiving that the public pedestrian way
is up three sides and not the back side of the private drive. I
perceived it from the public trail where the fronts of the homes
will be facing our public trail. When a project comes in for our
Residential Design Standards, and filing our checklist, that's what
we would be concerned about. For example, Lot 6, we would probably
want to see the garage access off of the private drive on Lot 6,
versus off of Lone Pine. Blaich stated, you just have to classify
that private drive as an alley, and then, you've got it solved.
Vann said, the other thing I didn't say, Leslie and I are very
close in terms of the recommended conditions of approval. We laid
these out in plan, and now that it's spring and we can walk around
on the site, we've staked the building envelopes and we have agreed
to go back on site, between now and final Council, to clean up some
of these corners on the site to help address some of the issues.
Vann showed on the map some of the changes that would be done, and
stated, we are going to make some little adjustments to actually
accommodate some of these topographic features that are on the
site. Vann stated, we are really pleased with the Planning
Office's review of the project.
Kerr asked if there were any members of the public who wished to
speak in regard to the application. Bernard Hyron stated, I live
directly across the street from the parking lot in Building 9 of
Hunter Creek. I'm talking about views. When I bought the
condominium 6-1/2 years ago, I looked directly out at Tiehack, and
if I looked to the left of my livingroom window, I saw Aspen
Hountain. It concerns me greatly that my view not be impeded
because it is the basic reason that I bought this particular
condominium. If Lot 7 remains as it is, and nothing else is put up
on it, I think I should be alright, but I don't know about the view
toward Aspen Hountain with those other buildings, I can't visualize
that. But it concerns me greatly that nothing else be put up on
Lot 7, and your point, Mr. Kerr, was well taken; as far as I'm
concerned I want something put in there to prevent future building.
35
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 6, 1995
I have a couple of other concerns; one is, has the soil been tested
for lead poisoning in that area? If this is approved and they
start digging the foundations, I just want to make sure that it is
free from any contamination. Vann answered stating, portions of
this site are in the so-called super front site, and testings
conducted by the EPA indicate, to varying degrees, some of the
soils on this property have the same problem as the Aspen Tennis
Club and, therefore, condition of approval is this, that any
excavation, grading, and all, comply with the institutional
controls that have been adopted by the EPA, which specify what you
can do with the soil, how it can moved, what precautions have to be
taken, and so forth. One of the reasons we designed it the way we
did, instead of doing a multi-family project, is that this allows
us to maintain much, if not a substantial portion, of the site in
its present condition. We don't have to grade it out, we don't
have to grade out the existing scrub which exasperates the problem,
from our point of view, from a cost perspective. This is the
easiest way for us to do it and deal with the EPA controls which
have been imposed on the property.
Lamont added stating, in addition, we have a condition of approval
that they also must file with the State of Colorado, a Fugitive
Dust Plan that talks about when they are hauling dirt on or off
site, and how they will keep the dust down. Hyron stated, that
concerns me. Lamont added, that's on top of the institutional
controls.
Hyron stated, the other concern I have is the over saturation of
the area, I hate to get that "closed-in" feeling. One of the
beauties of Aspen, and why we are all here, is the open spaces, and
here goes another open space that's going to be closed, and on and
on it goes. So, it's a concern of mine.
Hyron added, the other thing is, I use the bus a lot, I either
walk, bike, or use the bus, and I try not to use my car. During
the on-season, whether it be winter or summer, those buses are
beginning to get very crowded and I feel that I'm back in New York
City. Bringing more people into the area is making it a little too
saturated for me.
Kerr stated, my guess is that the 6th Lot owners are not going to
be bus riders. Ail of us are concerned about losing what's
perceived to be open space; one of the ways, unfortunately, to look
at that is, is to compare what this application is versus what
potentially could be there. Hyron said, I understand that. Kerr
continued saying, what could be there could be much more dense.
36
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 6, 1995
Lenny Oates said, just a comment, for what it's worth. I represent
the Hunter Creek Commons Corporation, which is the owner of all the
common area within Hunter Creek Condominiums. What has been
pointed out as the triangle parcel which is sort of the open model
for the top of the project, has recently been acquired by the
Comdominium Assocation. (The Clerk apologizes, but at this point
the tape ran out and had to be changed, so portions of Hr. Oates'
comments was not recorded.) Oates continued, if somehow, that
could be fit in to some formulation, I understand Hr. Hocklin would
not be obligated to do so, but I would like you to bear in mind,
that you will be seeing something on that, we don't know what, so,
just to let you know.
Vann responded saying, those of you that are familar with the
Hocklin building; it sits up on a hill above that parcel, so that
parcel is not at the same grade. Oates stated, we are not here to
object to the application.
Kerr asked, other public comment? There was none, and he closed
the public hearing.
Hunt stated, I have some technical things to get through here.
Kerr asked, let's hold off on that for just a moment. I want to
find out about the conditions of approval.
Vann said, the simplest way, other than going through every one of
of them.. Kerr stated, I don't want to go through them all, just
the ones where we disagree. Vann said, I was just going to outline
those that I think we want to discuss.
Vann said, we can start on page 12 of the memorandum. On page 13,
which is Condition 3-d. I think I have already noted this for the
record, and that is, this is the first time I have seen a condition
in which under the land use code we attempt to regulate the
perception of property as either being gated, private, or anything
else. I will state for the record that while we don't have any
intent of that, at the moment, we have not even discussed it, but
this is something that is not in our land use code and it begins to
stretch the bounds of the subdivision review process as a condition
of approval.
Vann stated, Condition 4, on page 13, item h., the dedication of
Spring Street right-of-way, and a trail easement across this parcel
(referring to map), which is Hr. Hocklin's, as well. The City has
proscriptive right, I'm sure, for Spring Street, across Mr.
37
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 6, 1995
Hocklin's property, it's been there forever. There is no plated
right-of-way, and the City, at some time, would like to extend this
trail across this area where people have already cut across to get
down to Spring Street in the Oklahoma Flats area. We are certainly
willing to discuss both of those issues with the City, but I
believe, and I think the City Attorney would support, that is not
part of this application and, therefore, I don't think you can
exact it as part of this subdivision approval. It's like me having
two pieces of property and saying, for exchange for approving this
one, I want you to give something else on this piece over here;
they're not continuous, they are separated by a plat of right-of-
way, and I simply register my objection to that condition at this
time, and I'm sure we'll debate it further with the City Attorney
and City Council.
Vann stated, 5-b. requests that we address PH10 caused by this
project. There has been considerable discussion on the PH10 issue
in recent years, the City has not adopted any regulations in its
land use code and, particularly, in subdivision regulations,
regarding the PH10, and it has not exacted this condition on any
project that I am aware of. Leslie tells me that they did make it
a condition on the Juanstreet Project, the City was the applicant
in that case, and I assume they agreed to do it. It was not done
on a recently approved Williams Wood Project; it has not been done
on any other City affordable housing project, to my knowledge, nor
on any other public or private residential development application.
I personally have done multiple projects in recent years with you
people, we just finished the 204 E. Durant, and it was not required
as a condition of approval there, it has not been required on any
lot splits which we have approved last year and, therefore, I
question its appropriateness in this location. I don't think we're
going to resolve it here tonight, I think it is a question for the
City Attorney and it is something that we will resolve when we go
to City Council. I do want you to know my objection to the
inclusion of that condition; I don't necessarily object to the
concept, but I think if the City is to apply such regulations, they
should be applied across the board and you should adopt amendments
to your land use code to put applicants on notice that it is, in
fact, a requirement that has to be met.
Vann stated, on page 14, Leslie and I have discussed Item 6-b.
before, and I think we have an agreement that the drainage plan
issue on here would be addressed prior to issuance of individual
building permits because it is depending, in part, on the size of
the structure, the nature of roof drains, impervious services, and
so forth. This is one which Chuck has routinely agreed to as a
38
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 6, 1995
condition preceeding the building permit. When we have more
information, we will address basic site drainage with respect to
the access road as part of the plan and profile. Information is to
be submitted in conjunction with the final plat. We will agree to,
of course, to maintain historic run-off, and so forth. We are just
saying that the individual draining plans for the individual lots
will be met in connection with building permits and, therefore, 6-
b. will be moved to 5, and will become 5-e.
Vann further stated, Leslie has already noted a mix-up in this
particular memorandum, and has agreed to delete the last portion of
Condition ~8, "correct any runoff or erosion problems that
currently exists on site". I'm not sure where that came from; she
said it came from a prior approval.
Vann said, the rest of this is fine. There are some conditions
here I've not seen before but, I guess, this is the new
requirements from the Engineering Department, and I don't think we
have a problem with meeting any of the rest of these conditions.
So, with those two objections noted, and the request to change 6-
b., these conditions are acceptable as drafted to the applicant.
Chuck Roth stated, I think the Engineering Department had some
comments on some of the conditions of approval, either on Condition
~1 or in Condition ~4-a., we suggested that the applicant prepare
to underground aerial utilities to the site. Right now, there are
aerial utilities and I believe that would involve undergrounding
one scan of aerial utilities. Vann responded saying, the code
requires that all of the utility extensions to serve the project be
undergrounded, and the applicant is committed to such as part of
the application. So, therefore, any extensions of utilities will
all be placed underground. There is an existing power cable that
crosses the property which may or may not be affected by this
project. I believe that, Hr. Hocklin, or any developer of this
project, will elect to underground that at their expense, but I
don't believe that our code requires that that be made a condition
of approval. I think it will become the end result because it
enhances the value of the lots, but since we are not changing those
lines, moving those lines, I don't think our code requires us to
underground them at this time as a condition of approval.
Lamont stated, it is not clear whether the code requires it or does
not require it, if you want to put that in as condition of approval
pursuant to our land use codes, then, we can follow up on that.
39
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 6, 1995
Roth stated, I would like the subdivision agreement to acknowledge
the existing sidewalk that the City constructed and take over
immediately upon approval, maintenance, snow removal, cleaning,
repair of that sidewalk. That would be 3-f., and 3-d, I would just
like to document that during construction of any of the units or
any of the infra-structure that no tracking of mud on the City
streets will be permitted. Vann answered, the second one is
actually, fine.
Vann stated, as such time as we installed the new sidewalk on Lone
Pine, and the homes are built and construction, there's a
Homeowner's Association where you can retain that sidewalk, as well
as the one on Gibson, subject to whatever regulations are currently
on the books. However, Hr. Hocklin did not build a sidewalk that's
on Gibson now, he has no immediate plans to develop this project,
and I think it is unreasonable to say, as a condition of this
approval, which is not going forward at this time, to require him
to automatically assume maintenance of the sidewalk which the City
elected to place along this property. That's just my feeling on
it.
Kerr asked, what does the code say about sidewalks, now? Roth
answered, the code clearly states that the adjacent property owner
is required to maintain the sidewalk. Kerr asked, if that's what
the code says, then, why do we need it as a condition? Vann asked,
have you taken any actions to ask him to maintain it? Roth
answered, I don't know the answer to that question. I know that
the City did assume maintenance when the sidewalk was constructed,
both there, and on down the hill, and up the hill. Because,
perhaps, of the difficulty of enforcing or .... I'm not sure how to
state this...there's a difficulty of requiring that the adjacent
property owners maintain the sidewalk. On the Neal Avenue sidewalk
project it has been more appropriate to enforce the adjacent
property owner to remove the snow. The density on Neal Avenue is
higher, the density along Gibson was lower. It wasn't a clear
situation. Vann stated, that is enforcement action, it's a
regulation, the City installed the sidewalk, if they think Hr.
Hocklin ought to be called on the sidewalk they ought to contact
Hr. Hocklin accordingly. I don't think it has anything to do with
this land use approval, I hate to see it made a condition of
approval.
Roth stated, Item 4-c. relates to 6-a. 6-a. talks about an
agreement to construct curb and gutter. We would like the
applicant and the developer to construct the curb and gutter on the
Lone Pine. Kerr stated, add "sidewalk". Vann stated, it was my
4O
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 6, 1995
understanding, we represented as part of the application, that we
would install the sidewalk on the condition of our approval. It
will be contained in the improvements agreement, the financial
guarantees provided, will be constructed in connection with the
project. I read this to mean that you wanted us to join in Joint
Improvements Agreement, in the event the City required any further
approvals in the area. I'm not sure what your problem is. Roth
answered, well, it sounds like, maybe, I don't have one.
Lamont stated, Chuck, the reason why I say, shall enter into
agreement with the Engineering Department to construct curb and
gutter in the future; I see what you are saying, that it should be
"sidewalk" curb and gutter. Roth stated, no, we want neither or
both of them constructed at this time. Lamont said, my thinking
was, that by bringing the applicant in on an agreement situation,
if the sidewalk isn't ready or we don't have a good alignment yet,
when they want to file the plat, then we have time to work on the
sidewalk and the alignment. Kerr asked, do you want to add
"sidewalk" to 6-a? Vann stated, I think this came up, we
represented that we would include a sidewalk, because it is covered
in the clause to put a sidewalk in, and when we went out to look at
the site, this area here (referring to the map), you can see that
the topography is quite steep, there is some substantial, mature
cottonwoods along here, and when we inspected the site the Parks
Department said without a sidewalk we're going to lose all the
vegetation, maybe we ought to talk about how we are going to do it
in this area, and so forth. So, I think Leslie's attempting to
respond to the concern they had about this portion of the sidewalk.
Kerr stated, I don't think there's a point of disagreement there.
Lamont stated, no, there's not. I just left out the word
"sidewalk" Vann asked, what about the alignment on that, when you
say alignment, would that include, potentially, the other side of
Lone Pine. Lamont answered, no. Well, if it gets to that point,
we will acknowledge that, but what the agreement does, it gives
everybody an opportunity to work on it, and then, when we are
ready, we pull the agreements. Vann stated, we will agree to put
the sidewalk in, we will resolve the sidewalk alignment and
specifications to the satisfaction of Engineering and Parks. If
that involves the entire length, that's what we'll build. If you
decide you don't want it in that location, we'll agree to that as
part of the subdivision agreement and we'll build what it is you
agree is appropriate.
Roth stated, the City has received other land use applications with
difficult sidewalk situations where the applicant is providing
easement on the property for the sidewalk. Vann stated, it doesn't
41
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 6, 1995
really work here because of the parking. Kerr stated, what Sunny
just said covers it, and Condition 15 incorporates everything that
Sunny just said. He says they're going to make sure a sidewalk
gets built, that's good enough for me.
Hunt stated, your plan shows two new hydrants in the access and
utility easement, and the text on page 29, paragraph 108, indicates
one, how many do we get? Vann answered, we will meet the
requirement under the subdivision regulations for spacing. I wrote
the application while Hans Broker with Banner Associates was still
developing those plans, I've seen the discussions with the fire
chief; he indicated a preference for two, if that's what's
required, that's what we will provide.
Hunt stated, also, on page 7, paragraph 3, you indicate that there
will be an access turnaround and I don't see it on the plan. Vann
answered, it is a hammerhead turnaround so we don't have to eat up
half the site with a hugh cul-de-sac. It has been reviewed by the
Fire Department. This cannot be used for parking.
Hunt stated, the last item for me is the harriest one. It relates
to the two close curb cuts, which I know that Engineering,
generally, doesn't like. But more particularly, I'm very concerned
about that approximately five foot grade change on your access road
and how you are going to do that. That means to me that you are
going to have to move an awful lot of dirt somehow or another. I
would like to know just how you are going to do that. It looks to
me that any grade down there; you're going to have a major grade
change between the road and Lot 6, inevitably.
Vann stated, (referring to map), this lot will be filled in this
area, and it will be feathered back to permit a general downhill
through this area. We thought about consolidating the grade and
some of the radius requirements here would acquire into this area
here and lose parking for the existing tenants. 15 parking spaces
is what we need to provide, but it's guest parking, provides
overflow and this is a nice, landscaped, grass area. So, rather
than trying to come in in one place, cross the ditch, make a huge
turn radius, and so forth, we elected not to do that. You raised a
very good point regarding what this is actually going to look like.
The code requires us to submit a plan profile and engineering
drawings for the next stage of review, and that is our intent to do
so. If the Engineering Department has a problem with that when it
comes up, we may have to re-visit that issue. It did not require
that detailed grading plan at the conceptual level, so, the way it
is set up now, that issue would get further deferred to City
42
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 6, 1995
Council. What I would suggest is to note your concerns about it
and if it comes in with the detailed drawings, and the staff feels
that it doesn't address your concerns, they may elect for us to
come back on that issue and discuss if further.
Roth asked, is there 25 ft. between the driveway and .... Vann
answered, yes, there is more than that. Roth stated, that's what
the code requires, Roger, is 25 feet. Vann referred to the map
again, and stated there were no curb cuts. He said, there is one
parcel here, and there is one parcel here which is accessed off of
Gibson Avenue, so, there is only one other parcel here, and I'm not
sure, but I think it is also owned by Hunter Creek. It's the area
behind the building that sits right here (referring to map). So,
the potential for substantial development and additional curb cuts
along here is limited. In either case, even if you go through that
existing driveway that's out there, we still have a major grade
change, between there and Lot 6. Roth stated, that driveway needs
to be looked at as a road, because the driveway generally serves
the same as the road does. Vann stated, under the code, a driveway
will serve up to seven residences. Kerr asked, City code or County
code? Vann answered, as far as I know, the City code. Roth
stated, I don't think I've seen that, I'm not familar with that.
Vann stated, the point is, if we build a City street here to serve
six residences, we have destroyed this site. What we need is an
adequate roadway, paved surface, to accommodate two lanes of
traffic, with no parking on it, to accommodate emergency vehicles
so they can get in and out of the site, with the least amount of
obstruction to the site as possible. As the Planning Office
pointed out, they would also like to have a separate, dedicated
walkway along that road so that these residents do not have to walk
on this pavement to get here. What we are trying to get away from
is classic curb and gutter on site. So, this is a problematic
area, we're certainly aware of it, we are planning on addressing it
as we go forward, and as I said, Roger, the best thing to do is to
note the concern and if the Planning Office thinks it hasn't been
adequately addressed, we'll discuss it further.
Lamont stated, so, essentially, with having the fill and the grade,
we are going to lose primarily that entire aspen grove. Vann
responded, we are having a problem with the "topo" not fitting
completely here, and one of the things that Leslie has asked to do,
is to come back and locate all the trees over 6 inches which will
give us a better idea if there's anything over 6 in this area.
This is primarily a grove of small aspen samplings, there may or
may not be a couple that are 6 inches in here, but for the most
43
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 6, 1995
part, they are very small. To the extent that they are aspen, they
can be replanted and I think, the only landscape plan that we are
going to propose, is the access road, and it's shielded from this
particular site (referring to the map), and we are going to
establish minimal landscape guidelines for the construction of the
individual homes, like no manipulation of the vegetation outside
the envelopes, and specify things that need to be done. We're not
proposing to come in and landscape all of this area. So, except
that we lose some smaller aspen in this area, it is our intent to
offset that lose through additional landscaping. Something has to
give somewhere. I think we have tried to preserve most of the
major site features, I think we can address Leslie's concerns, at
least in part, on some of these other key features that she wants
to talk about, we can certainly fine-tune some of these building
envelopes to address some of the concerns she has raised. We are
going to have to do some grading on the site. I think it is
remarkable that we can develop a project of this scale and have
this amount of grading on site. If you compared this to Williams
Ranch, where you are moving soil all over the place, I think it is
remarkable that we can do it with so minimal a site disruption.
Hunt stated, what they are showing here is, basically, just the
access that's there, but my point is, that you will probably have
to fill in this area here (referring to map), as well, in order to
get the sidewalk. Vann stated, and that will provide an
opportunity for landscaping. Hunt said, that's all "stuff" I would
have liked to have seen. I will just make a comment about the
mound. If the mound is so important, it could be moved somewhere
else and put a flagpole on it or something like that. I don't have
a problem with that mound on the building site vanishing. Hove the
darn thing, if it's that necessary. Vann stated, we can't replant
the sage.
Kerr asked, Roger, would you be satisfied with some kind of
condition saying that entryway, and the grades, and all that, must
satisfy the Engineering Department? In affect, that's what
Condition ~C-2 says, I think. They've got to submit a subdivision
plat and Subdivision Improvement Agreement for a review and we
could add in the word "and approval by the Engineering and Planning
Departments" I don't feel qualified, as a lay person, to be
making decisions about the grade changes in the entryway. Lamont
stated, I would recommend that that language be put under 16, where
we talk about prior subdivision review by Council following issues
that shall be resolved. Kerr answered, I don't care where it gets
resolved, but when. Lamont continued, so, it would be number c.,
Vann stated, that's fine, because the code already dictates that we
44
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 6, 1995
provide certain additional material. We used to have a four-step
subdivision process, and we consolidated to two. It has created
certain problems because normally conceptual process is shorter,
you don't get to see as much information as you did under the old
process because now it gets done when it goes to final plat at
Council. If you remember, you "guys" were trying to shorten the
process, so that was one of the things that fell out of it.
Kerr stated, shorten the process and lengthen out meetings. Is
there a word from you, Roger? Hunt stated, I'm not too happy about
it, but I guess it will do. Vann, stated, once we get it, I'd be
happy to sit down and show you what we are doing. Hunt replied,
the problem is, you're going to make, basically, a hole for that
Lot 6 building envelope to sit in. Vann stated, it's already a
hole. Hunt said, I agree, it is already a hole, obviously there's
five or six feet along that edge, but now it's going to be wrapped
around it. Vann stated, when you think about it, the height
requirements on that lot are problematic anyway, because we have to
measure height from existing or finished grade whichever one is
more restrictive. So, it doesn't do any good to grade it and fill
it, because it doesn't help the height situation, so, my thinking
would be that we would use that grading and also accommodate some
of the landscaping to shield that home. So, I think it's a
problem, but I don't think it is something we can't resolve.
Kerr asked, Leslie, do you have language for 16-c? Lamont
answered, "prior to subdivision review by Council, the following
issues shall be resolved: c. a grade plan shall be submitted
indicating.." Roth interrupted saying, I think it's in a., isn't
it? "A revised site plan shall be submitted indicating the
internal pedestrian way". Lamont continued saying, "identification
of trees greater than six inches in caliper, and grading plan for
access drive". Kerr stated, so, you're standing on 16-a? Lamont
said, yes. Kerr said, good.
Buettow stated, if we go with that issue, I have some concerns
about the initial trade. I feel that the City is getting the short
end of the trade of the existing building for all these rights.
For instance, the present building is "maxed out" at
for its usage, right now, and if we traded for affordable housing
or employee units, it's already being used for that, and in
particular, five of the units don't meet out code and our Housing
approval and if we are only going to take 6 or 7 of them, instead
of all 8, we should at least take the 3-bedroom ones that are the
nicest units and let the owner keep, for his free market, the ones
that are underground and so much smaller.
45
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 6, 1995
Vann stated, let's look back, and first of all, the code says that
even though they will be used as defacto housing, you can check the
rents over there, they are fairly high, they are not low income
which was proposed under this guideline, because they are very nice
units. In fact, Mr. Mocklin owns one of the 3-bedrooms and the
others are rented out at fair market values. Our plans says, even
though they may be defacto housing it is important to maintain them
as part of the enventory. Our feeling was, and think the City has
already agreed, so I don't think it is even on the table here, that
the swapping of those units is within the intent of the provision
of the code that provides the growth management exemption. In
other words, you are getting more units than what could be torn
down and I would be required to replace. As I pointed out earlier,
you are getting an income category that is below that which would
ordinarily be required under the replacement provision. You're
getting seven of the eight units, and the seventh unit would
increase the square footage as being deed restricted, as to being
over the minimal requirement if I was to tear the building down.
Furthermore, the reason for maintaining Mr. Mocklin's unit; he may
wish to live in that unit until he decides to leave this community.
So, no, I don't want to deed restrict Mr. Mocklin's unit, you are
getting one of the 3-bedrooms deed restricted to deed restricted
status which takes you over the requirement and Hr. Hocklin will
then have the ability to live within his existing unit for so long
as he chooses to remain within this community.
Buettow stated, this whole project is not in compliance with the
Aspen Area Community Plan, which recommends open space there.
Thirdly, I really feel that with the R15 zone, FAR that's allowed,
we're going to end up with 7,000 to 8,000 sq. ft. houses on half
acres lots and lots of them, and they are going to be very large.
And so, I would prefer to see an R15B designation for this area. I
think would keep it much more in scale with a subdivision like this
that should be small in scale rather than having very large houses.
I see a very large square footage because this site does have
radical changes of grade in it, where you can do walk-out
basements; you have very large basements in there. The access
road, you definitely should have conditions so that doesn't become
a private situation similar to the 1010 Ute Avenue. The site
landscape has a lot of problems that need more consideration as far
as how to put these envelopes on the site and not graded flat. I
have some serious considerations about this subdivision.
Vann answered saying, as far as the zoning, the City zoned it, I
didn't zone it; they zoned it R15A, it should be zoned RMF and I
46
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 6, 1995
think it already has a legal argument of why it should be RMF. So,
we are developing under existing zoning and attempting to maximize
the size of the lots with respect to the minimal requirement of the
R15 zone district. As far as the walkout basements, I don't think
it's possible because we can't disturb outside of the building
envelope. I guess you could dig a hole down within the building
envelope and have an area where you could walk out, but you would
never see it from the street. Non-compliance with the community
plan, let me state this regarding the open space, for the record,
the plan recommends or suggests that it should be in an appropriate
location for acquisition as open space. To date, no one has
approached Hr. Hocklin regarding the acquisition of that property.
We have stated in our application that we would entertain any such
request, I think it is unreasonable to expect Hr. Hocklin to give
it to the City, and if the City would like to come forward, or any
other party, I'm sure he would be willing to talk to them. In the
interim, he is trying to do some estate planning regarding his
property, and he is trying to do it out of existing regulations
which are applied to his property. I might also mention, the
referral comments from the Parks Department itself, indicated that
this was no longer high priority for acquisition as a park because
of the decisions that were made in respect to the Snyder property,
I believe, and with the Williams Ranch project's proposal or
requirement to improve the Holly Gibson Park as part of its
application. If this was to be acquired, I don't think the City
would acquire the entire site, because I don't think they want to
destroy the existing building and displace residents. So, what
they would be looking at is acquiring that portion of the project
which we are proposing to subdivide for single-family; I think the
City would probably recognize that its appraised value of single-
family verses its desirability for open space is not an economical,
viable, opportunity for the City. As Hr. Hocklin has pointed out,
he is willing to attain an offer for the property if someone would
like to buy it for open space purposes.
Vann stated, as far as the FARs, I don't believe you going to be
able to do a 8,000 sq. ft. lot. We are going to re-calculate the
FARs once we subtract out the easements, as requested by Leslie.
It is kind of premature to calculate it, because I'm not sure what
the new FAR regulations are going to be. The mayor is still
calling for an across the board reduction, perhaps, in overall FAR,
so it's hard to say where this is going to be with the most liberal
interpretation of the existing regulations and not subtracting the
easement, which you tell me is incorrect, is around 4,000-plus
feet. So, it can't go anywhere but down with the requirement to
47
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 6, 1995
subtract the easement and with the potential requirements that are
coming out of the new FAR regulations.
Lamont stated, allowable FAR on a 15,000 sq. ft. lot in this zone
district is 4,500 sq. ft. Buettow stated, you've got a large
garage, you've got 500 sq. ft. ADU, you've got a full basement
under there, these are going to be very large houses. Lamont
stated, ADUs would not be required. Garton stated, so, we could
say, no, to ADUs here, Steve. Buettow stated, they are going to
ask for ADUs, I'll make a prediction. Vann stated, when the City
changes its regulations to say they are mandatory rentals I think
you will see an automatic dryup of any requests for further ADUs.
The beauty of the ADU is the flexibility, admittedly, some people
tend to abuse it, or may abuse it, but there are also those who
legitimately use it for that purpose.
Garton stated, my big concern with this is the height of the roofs
and I don't think we can put that into a subdivision approval.
Hopefully, this will be under.., because it's under first reading
already, Leslie, they will be required to comply with whatever is
in affect, right, as far as this new ordinance goes? Lamont
answered, yes. Garton stated, regarding the language providing
the installation of signage in Condition 3-d., I would like to
see...I just live in that area, and I know how confused people are
navigating; I definitely think there has to be some kind of signage
saying, dead end, no public thoroughfare, or something. To say no
signage at all, is unrealistic.
Garton continued saying, Condition 12 about lighting. Chuck
recommended in a memorandum about the antique street lighting,
which I am happy to see that the staff does not recommend. I like
this condition, Sunny. Vann stated, I think this is an internal
lighting, I think, if I'm not mistaken. Garton stated, I hate to
see the antique lamp posts go over to that area. This is not the
old City plot, and for those antique lamp posts to go over on any
of the public streets there, I think is very inappropriate. They
don't fit, they don't work, they could be a kind of ranch lighting,
put the Design Workshop on it, or something like that; it would be
much more appropriate to the more rural areas that are over there.
Vann stated, our feeling on it is, that the subdivision regulations
require the installation of street lighting, I think there will
probably be a requirement that some go along Lone Pine; the City
also required us to pay for more lighting beyond which they
installed, on Gibson, which I find ironic; we didn't put it in
because we didn't think it was necessary. Nonetheless, the code
48
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 6, 1995
says we will install street lighting and I assume we are at the
mercy of the City and to what that is and how many. Garton stated,
it is just a recommendation to look harder at the design of the
poles that are over there and for the City to also consider getting
rid of all the sodium vapor lighting, which is really inappropriate
around town. They look like prison lighting. And, Leslie, I think
deducting from the allotment pool for affordable housing is not at
all with the intent of what the community plan said. The community
plan wants growth to be deducted as growth, and this is not new
growth, so, no, I do not think it should be deducted, these 7
units, from the Housing allotment pool. That wasn't the intent of
those kinds of deductions.
Hooney stated, can you again, tell me why this should be exempt
from the GHQS? Lamont answered, right now, in the code, we exempt
by Planning Director from competition and from pulling out of our
allotment pool, demolition and replacement of housing. The theory
was, originally that if there are six units on your property, if
you were going to tear down and then you were going to put six
units back on your property, theoretically, that was not growth.
What happened with Ordinance 1 is we are losing apartment buildings
that were defacto local housing. So, Ordinance 1 said, if you are
going to tear down and replace your six units on your property, you
have to mitigate your employee housing generation. So, Ordinance
1, said you have to put back, not only put back your six units that
you tore down, but you also have to put back on your property, 50
percent of the bedrooms that were in the old building, and 50
percent of the FAR of that old building as deed restricted housing.
The reason it was exempt from the competition was because it was
not considered growth, we were just tearing down and replacing. It
was not exempted from the allotment pools because there were no new
units going on the market. We were getting potentially new units
on the market, but they were affordable housing units, because they
were not only replacing what they had, they had to provide
affordable housing. The Housing Replacement Program doesn't allow
you to cash-out, you have to put the affordable housing back on the
property. So, maybe, you've got ten units back on the property
when originally there were six. Now, when we revised our growth
management section in the code, we still kept the demolition and
replacement as exempt from competition. We still say that if you
tear down and replace multi-family, you have to put deed restricted
housing on the site as part of the Housing Replacement Program.
What we didn't say in that language is that new affordable housing
is exempt from coming out of the pool.
49
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 6, 1995
Buettow stated, but, these units here are essentially, already
affordable housing, so what we've got is growth of six houses,
despite all the "mumbo jumbo". It's the same amount that is
already there. Hooney stated, I don't get that, either.
Lamont stated, sure, we could say, these units are free market,
whether they feel and look like free market units, they are free
market units and are not deed restricted. Peter could tear down
the building tomorrow and build back and do six parcels, free
market homes. Or, he could tear down a luxury condo building of
six condos tomorrow. Hooney asked, what about the free market
houses, I mean, why are they exempt? I can see how the push
between the existing building and the elimination of the ADUs is
what we are talking about. But, why aren't the free market lots
competing there?
Hary Lackner of staff stated, the City has recognized they're
exchanging each unit in that multi-family building for a free
market unit. They said, the equivalent of this, one or two or
three-bedroom unit in that multi-family building, is the equivalent
of one single-family house. That's where the demolition and re-
construction that Leslie's talking about is coming from.
Commissioner Blaich excused himself from the meeting during the
proceedings for personal reasons as expressed to Chairman Kerr.
Hooney stated, so, what you are saying is, that the existing
improvements are the equivalent of six single-family homes? Lamont
stated, they are the equivalent of eight, because there are eight
units in the apartment. Hooney stated, it looks to me, it's two
different parcels that we have. Lamont said, our code always, and
still, today, says when you demolish and replace. Hooney said,
O.K., we've got this theory that if he did demolish it, then, he
would be penalizing himself, and so, he's not going to do that.
Lamont stated, no, the theory is, with eight free market units on
it. Now, one of the units is only 370 sq. ft. If that was all
that was on that parcel, a 370 sq. ft. shed, that was considered a
legal dwelling unit, Peter could tear that down and rebuild back a
4,500 sq. ft. home. Growth management and the replacement and
whether you have credits on your land, meaning a development
allotment on your land, has never taken into consideration that
what we lose, and what is replaced are two very distinctly
different structures. That was the whole point behind trying to
come out of living unit equivalent for growth management, which is
not in these regulations, which we may still work on. So, he has
eight free market units on that property; he could tear down that
5O
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 6, 1995
building today and build back, in whatever configuration he wants
to rebuild on his property, those eight free market units, exempt
from competition, exempt from coming out of the allotment pool.
Mooney asked, exempt from Ordinance 17 Lamont said, no. But the
only difference in this is, because of Ordinance 1, because he has
to, if he tears down and replaces, put in housing on the property;
the request came to us a couple of years ago, why do we have to
tear down our building to build affordable housing on our property?
We have enough land to realize our eight free market units, in
whatever configuration we want, and supply our affordable housing,
without tearing down our building. Why do we have to tear down our
building? So, the theory is that tearing down and building back,
on the same piece of land, is no growth. On six of those units,
the code is pretty clear on, those six free market units are not
considered growth. What the code is not clear on is when someone
provides employee housing, whether they deed restrict existing
housing or whether they build new employee housing on the parcel,
where does that come out of? Hunt stated, don't you mean
affordable housing? Lamont stated, affordable housing, I'm sorry.
I don't disagree with you that it is already defacto affordable
housing. Hunt stated, no, it's not affordable housing. Lamont
said, it's not on our enventory, it's not deed restricted. Once it
becomes deed restricted he has met his obligation for mitigation.
Garton stated, it should not come out of the pool, to me, because
it is not increased growth.
Lamont stated, one thing that you need to decide on that is not
reflected in my conditions of approval, is how many units would you
recommend that are deed restricted? Six units, as the applicant
proposes, seven units, as the Housing Office recommends, or eight
units as Steve recommends. I failed to include that in my
conditions of approval.
Kerr stated, we haven't decided anything yet. Vann stated, just in
response to that one issue; there is precedent for deed restricting
additional units in sufficient number to meet the minimum square
footage requirement. Since the deed restriction of the one
additional 3-bedroom unit will take us over and above the minimum
requirements, and because of the generosity regarding the income
categories, to which Hr. Hocklin has proposed to deed restrict
them, I think we would agree to do one additional unit. I would
not agree to do all eight units, for reasons I stated before; Mr.
Hocklin would like to live on the property for the rest of his
tenure in this town and it is not necessary to deed restrict it to
comply with the affordable housing guidelines, nor has the Housing
Authority asked that all eight units be deed restricted.
51
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 6, 1995
MOTION
Garton stated, I move to approve the special review for floor area
ratio, parking and open space for Lot 7 of the Hocklin Subdivision.
Hunt seconded. Voting commenced, vote was unanimous in favor,
motion carried.
Discussion of Notion
Hooney stated, I think this is where we should talk about whether
or not additional development can happen on this parcel. Parcel 7,
right? Garton asked, you would like me to add a condition to my
motion that the existing floor area ratio remains? Hooney stated,
I think, looking at what we are approving, and considering the
approvals we are going to get for the density of the rest of the
property, I would like to see something that says that this parcel
has the integrity of what we are voting on. Garton stated, it
says, special review for floor area ratio. Floor area ratio is
stated. Lamont added, you could do that, but, for example, if the
building burned down, someone could come up with a different
configuration. What I would suggest to say is, with the following
condition that the existing floor area, density, and free market
affordable housing mix shall be maintained without a substantial
amendment to the subdivision that requires P&Z and Council review.
Lamont stated, I would also make it a recommendation under
Subdivision, not your Special Review, your Subdivision. Kerr
stated, I don't think this motion is the place to make some kind of
additional condition. Garton stated, so, my motion stands as
written.
MOTION
Garton stated, I move to recommend to Council Subdivision approval
of the Hocklin property to seven parcels with the conditions
outlined in Planning Office memo dated June 6, 1995, as amended.
In my motion I would like to allow limited signage indicating that
it is not a through street. Hunt seconded, voting commenced, vote
was 4 approved, 1 opposed (Buettow), motion carried.
Discussion of Notion
Garton stated, in my motion I would like to allow limited signage
indicating that it is not a through street. Lamont stated, so,
signage shall be limited to "not a through street"
52
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 6, 1995
Kerr asked, what about the maintenance on the sidewalk. Garton
stated, you know, this is what I've asked for on Neal Street, as
Chuck knows, a study. I thought we were going to review all these
linking, what I consider, trailway sidewalks. I'm wondering if
it's proper to ask the homeowners to maintain this. We were going
to do an enventory but we considered main trail sidewalks. Roth
stated, one way I would differentiate between sidewalks and trails
is that sidewalks are always in conjunction with the street and
they are always adjacent to the street, whereas, the trail
generally isn't and generally goes between two other points.
Kerr stated, my feeling on this one is that, it's an enforcement
issue and I don't want to see it as a condition of approval; if the
code already says a joint property owner must maintain the
sidewalk, that's good enough for me. If the City chooses to
enforce it, then that's between the City and the property owner.
Garton said, that's what we've been doing on those areas, already.
There was discussion at random regarding the issue of sidewalks.
Garton stated, I will eliminate the condition then.
Hunt stated, we missed 3-g. for the record, it would now be f. No
tracking of mud and dirt on the City streets. Vann stated, those
are City requirements they're not subdivision requirements, but if
you want to put it into the agreement, that's O.K.
Kerr stated, 4-h. is the one Sunny had a problem with. Lamont
stated, I asked the City Attorneys about this. They told me I
could ask for it, and I will check with them again before Council
to see if it is a problematic condition of approval, but I have not
check with them since. Vann stated, that's fine with me. Kerr
stated, leave it in.
Kerr said, 5-b. Lamont stated, I have a whole one-page memorandum
here from Lee Cassin anticipating this argument. It basically
talks about why they request PH10 mitigation, and it talks about
the fact that it's not that difficult for applicants to comply,
they need to work with the Environmental Health Department. They
have standards and they have tables. Garton stated, I think it was
Mr. Kaufman saying that there is actually no way to measure that.
Lamont stated, Mr. Kaufman hasn't worked with the Environmental
Health Department. Vann stated, I have. I'm not objecting to the
concept of amendment, I just think, and you've heard me say this
many times, that if you want to impose things like this, amend your
code and provide a regulation, and apply it uniformly to people
that come through. The Planning Office, and I think Leslie will
agree, cannot sit here and tell me.. Garton said, I agree with you,
53
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 6, 1995
Sunny, I don't know how you measure the increase in PM10, I don't
know how you do that on six lots. Lee has to come here someday and
explain it to us. Lamont stated, I don't disagree with Sunny that
it's not being applied uniformly. Garton stated, I'm not going to
make it a condition. Lamont stated, there are a lot of things that
are not in the land use code, but people are required to comply.
Fireplaces and stoves are some of them.
Kerr said, 5-e. You agree to move 6-b. to 5-e. Garton stated, 6-
b. becomes part of 5-e., that makes sense.
Kerr stated, in Condition 8, you have a period after the word,
"site". Lamont stated, right, and delete it.
Lamont stated, on 16-a. we added a grading plan and profile for the
access drive.
Lamont stated, just for clarity's sake, on C-1. I would recommend
that you add, any cost to the public services that must be
installed or upgraded shall be borne by the applicant, including
the sidewalk curb and gutter. Garton stated, just for logic, I
think 15 ought to be the last condition, by the way. Kerr stated,
just re-number 15 and 16.
MOTION
Garton stated, I move to recommend to Council the rezoning of the
Mocklin property, Lot 7, to the Affordable Housing zone district.
Hunt seconded. Voting commenced, vote was unanimous in favor,
motion carried.
Discussion of Motion
Lamont stated, with the following condition that the existing FAR
density and free market/affordable housing mix shall remain unless
any proposal shall be a substantial amendment to the subdivision.
Vann stated, that's probably what the code says now. Kerr asked,
is it in or out? Garton stated, it's out. Kerr said, the motion
is as stated in the memorandum.
54
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 6, 1995
Lamont stated, you did not indicate whether you would recommend
six, seven or eight units.
MOTION
Hunt stated, I move to recommend seven deed restricted housing
units in Lot 7. Garton seconded. Voting commenced, vote was
unanimous in favor, motion carried.
Kerr closed the public hearing on the Hocklin property.
TIMROTH 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW FOR A DRIVEWAY
Mary Lackner represented staff and stated, Lenny Oates and Jerry
Timroth are here and this is a request to construct a parallel
access road with Spruce Street to access at Timroth Parcel. This
parcel was approved by the County and he is ready to go with his
building permits, except he can't get access across the existing
Spruce Street. Before Williams Ranch was approved, Mr. Timroth was
able to get an access easement through that parcel to access his
property. So, he's got legal access on paper, but doesn't have the
ability to construct it without going through this 8040 Greenline
Review with the City. Here's some pictures of existing Spruce
Street and looking down where the access road will be constructed.
Lackner described on map the parcels, and where the access road is
proposed to be. She stated, this request is to develop, along this
access easement that has been granted, about 330 feet. Under the
8040 approvals, staff has some concerns that it is a parallel
access road that is additional disturbance in an 8040 Greenline
area. We have outstanding concerns with that. The City road
departments require a minimum of 20 foot lot access road, but
because this will be accessing two residences in the County and a
proposed one in the City, staff feels we can go to the 12 foot
minimum access requirements of the County, and that the City parcel
can get alternative access from within the subdivision.
Lackner stated, I'll be brief; in this, staff is uncomfortable, you
can probably tell that from my memorandum, but we don't know of
another alternative to allow the applicant to get access to his
parcel, and we think we are reducing disturbance as much as
possible. We're recommending that it go to a 12 foot wide access
road. We are looking at reducing air quality impacts by having
55
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 6, 1995
them do some kind of dust mitigation plan, and also, all trees that
are taken out be replaced.
She stated, there are some concerns that the Engineering Department
raised, and Lenny has a follow-up letter to that (attached in
record).
Kerr asked, Mary is that all of your presentation. Lackner
replied, yes, but I will answer any questions you may have.
Kerr asked, Lenny, do you have anything? Oates answered, we will
be more than happy to answer any questions that you might have.
For the record, I'm Lenny Oates, and I'm here on behalf of Jerry
Timroth. Jerry, a resident of Aspen in excess of 30 years, desires
to build on these properties. Likewise, his son, who owns the
adjoining lot, wishes to construct his residence on his lot. Also
here, is Hans Broker, who is with Banner Engineering. Hans
supplemented the material he originally provided to us in response
to Chuck Roth's May 16th memorandum. I'm sorry for the lateness of
getting this to you, however, we just got it this afternoon, and
apparently Hans did not understand the time crush we were under.
The proposals that Hans makes in this letter, we concur in. Also,
we are willing to accept all the conditions as set forth in the
Planning Office's recommendation. I want the Planning and Zoning
Commission to know that we did use best efforts to obtain a right
along existing Spruce Street. It wasn't even a question of whether
or not that we could pay for it, it was just a flat denial by the
property owner that they wouldn't even deal with us with respect to
the matter.
Oates stated, the easement which we do have within Silverlode is an
access that was created in 1989. I think that at that point and
time it was recognized that that particular property owner might
pose some difficulty in alternative accesses. We will be more than
happy to answer any questions you might have with respect to the
easement or respond to any suggestions that you might have, and
I'll just close it up with that.
Buettow stated, you had a question about the agreement to use this
Spruce Street; are you sure that absolutely every legal possibility
has been explored on that because building this road here, right
next to the other one, seems like an incredible waste for just a
lack of an agreement. Oates answered, I don't disagree with you on
that, however, it's really beyond our control. We have attempted
56
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 6, 1995
to enter into discussions with that property owner and have had
discussions with his representative who just says, that he just
doesn't want to deal with it.
Garton stated, Lenny, I thought that the State required that you
had to provide access, a private owner did, to any other private
owner who's lot was beyond. The State says that. Oates answered,
I don't believe so. Garton said, we used to be in development in
Vail, and we sure had to. Oates said, I don't think there's any
requirement, there is a private right-of-way of necessity which
might be available to a property owner if this property were land-
locked by virtue of being split off from a larger common parcel.
Also, in some circumstances that might be a private right-of-way of
condemnation, but that's an extremely difficult process.
Buettow asked, but there's no rights that are associated with this?
Do you call this a street? Lackner asked Chuck Roth of
Engineering, where does it change from public to private, do you
know, Spruce Street? Roth answered, I don't know if I can say that
definitively. The County just recently had a case up on Castle
Creek that I read about in the papers, where there was a similar
situation where a property owner, basically, condemned the access
through a different property owner and then the County backed off
and made some other arrangements. Oates stated, I'm certainly
hopeful that the adjoining property owner will reconsider. I'm
hopeful, and frankly, that's one of our thoughts. Indeed, just for
your information, part of the existing Spruce Street is on our
property, it's that close to the property line, so it actually laps
over. He's actually using part of our property to access, if that
makes a lot of difference? You would have to see it, but it is
sort of a very homogeneous kind of situation up there with respect
to where this road runs.
Hunt asked, I would sort of like to know where the accesses are off
the existing Spruce Street on the north side here? This apparently
goes onto a Witz easement. Oates answered, yes. Hunt stated, and
this Witz has use of this Spruce Street? Oates answered, yes.
Hunt stated, my inclination would be, where it overlaps, fine,
stick a jersey dairy around that north side and prevent him from
using that portion of Spruce Street. This is really ridiculous.
Oates said, nobody wants to escalate this thing, and we want to be
as sensitive as we can be in connection with the whole thing. I'm
optimistic that it will work at the end of the day, and maybe we
won't have to use this. That's our sincere hope, we don't want to
be here.
57
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 6, 1995
Hunt stated, right now, what you're proposing is, basically, making
Spruce Street a sort of a strange four-lane for that portion,
right? Oates answered, something like that. From our perspective,
we don't even care if they move the whole thing over so that it
occupies the easement. Haybe the Williams Ranch people do, but we
don't.
Kerr stated, just to remind my commissioners that our task is not
to answer the questions about the easements or the access, but to
determine whether the new 380 foot section complies with the
requirements of 8040 Greenline. Ail these other issues are kind of
neat and fun to talk about, but that's not really our task.
Garton stated, it's very hard to approve it though. Hunt stated,
it sort of sticks in one's crawl. Kerr stated, there are 8040
requirements, they are supposed to mitigate, and the visual
impacts, and grading and all that sort of stuff; if their plans
have done that, along with the conditions, then I think that's all
we really need to discuss.
Garton asked, John (Worcester) has already looked at this, there's
nothing the City can do? Lackner stated, yes, he has looked at it
and he agrees that we can build in a lower road standard to reduce
impacts. We can't force the other property owner to give them
access. Hunt stated, I suggest that if Spruce Street is an
official City name, that it get transferred over to the middle
right-of-way, and just make that "guy's" access wherever his
driveway is. Don't give him the nicety of having an address on
Spruce Street. Garton stated, I know what Roger's saying, it
shouldn't be named Spruce Street if it's a private road. Hunt
said, exactly.
MOTION
Mooney stated, I'll make a motion, I think that for the leverage
that you need, I move to approve the 8040 Greenline Review for an
approximately 380 foot access drive to be used by the Albert and
Donna Timroth Parcel and the Grant Timroth Parcel, with the
conditions noted in the Planning Office memorandum dated June 6,
1995. Hunt seconded. Vote commenced, vote was 4 in favor, one
opposed (Garton), motion carried.
58
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 6, 1995
FARISH HALLAM LAKE ESA REVIEW
RECONSIDERATION
Klm Johnson represented staff and stated, this is back to you
because you voted to bring this back to reconsider it on April
25th. Apparently, the staff and P&Z, when they first reviewed this
in Harch, was not aware that the house would be totally demolished;
we were under certain assumptions that the rear portion of the
property would be left in tact, or substantially in tact, and
therefore, would remain in the 15 foot setback of the new
development area. I provided for you information from the packet
that you originally reviewed, and I tried to highlight the areas
where specific reference was made to this part of the building. Hy
memorandum sets forth for you options available to either approve
this demolished with replaced portion of the building with certain
findings along the criteria for special review for the Hallam Lake.
What this particular avenue would hinge upon is your finding a
unique condition on the site which would create a hardship and an
unworkable design problem in order to allow this special review to
be approved. We mentioned in the past, including at the original
meeting, that the site is heavily vegetated with spruce trees and
this is the site plan that would indicate to you, along the road
frontage here (referring to map), that there's major spruce trees
in the front part of the lot. Where they are, adding totally new
square footage, pretty much takes advantage of what area on the
site would allow for further development. We want to make sure
that if you did approve a special review like this, that there
would be special condition finding, because we want the P&Z to be
able to set a precedence, so that if there are other demolition and
replacement type projects coming forward to you that it wouldn't be
just a handy way for someone to get out of totally demolishing and
totally replacing something that may also be in that 15 foot
setback of new development.
Johnson stated, alternatively, you could make the finding that the
building has to remain as is but we would also want to have
clarification from the architect, specifically, what would be
remaining so that we aren't all confused and somewhat surprised
down the road to find two or three studs up and the rest of the
building removed. You could also make some findings that the walls
themselves could remain, but the hip roof would need to be lowered
59
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 6, 1995
to a flat roof section which currently, it is a flat roof now, and
that would limit somewhat the intrusion into that 15 foot setback
area.
Johnson stated, I tried to sun~arize my sun~ary on the back sheet,
I don't know if I necessarily hit anyone right on the head, but
we're just forwarding that to you for your review.
Gideon Kaufman, representing the applicant, stated, I'd like to
lead you through this as quickly as possible. If you will remember
the discussion that we had the last time focused upon the need to
keep the development within the existing footprint because of all
the trees that were there. For some reason, there is a
misunderstanding among some members of the ?&Z, as to whether or
not the existing walls would remain, we would add on to that or
remove. Just so it's very clear, in our application for the Farish
Hallam Lake Bluff Review response to release standards, in which we
asked for the special review, we specifically stated, that the
applicant intends to reuse the existing foundation for the new
development and will reconstruct the walls and roof so that the
roof will not extend past the top of the slope line. I want to put
that out very clearly, that there was no misrepresentation on our
part, we're sorry that there was some misunderstanding, but our
application clearly explained what we intended to do. If the
feels better, we can preserve the existing wall, and add onto it.
don't know that that accomplishes a whole lot, but if you feel
better and feel that that what you approved, we're willing to go
along with maintaining the existing wall and lending to it, as
opposed to removing the existing wall and making the structure go
up, which is a lot easier, and the end result is the same, but it
works better. So, we are willing to do either one of those things.
Our intention was, rather than keep the wall like this
(demonstrating with paper), and then add to the wall like this,
what we were going to do is take wall down and build one wall like
that. The hardship that was discussed and the reasons are the
same, and that is, that the site is such that the trees are there,
the only place to really build is within the footprint, and what we
wanted to be able to do is to add the roof in the livingroom so it
went above 8 feet. I'm happy to address them with you if you would
like us to go to what you thought you were approving, which was
keeping the wall and adding to it and we can do that; we thought it
made more sense to just take the wall down and rebuild it. We're
happy to discuss either of those options.
6O
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 6, 1995
Kerr stated, let me say, that I was one of those on the P&Z who
also, along with Steve, was one the Special Review Overlay, and
that's kind of how this issue arose. I have since been satisfied
that if we were to make a special finding, special conditions, and
then also approve it subject to all the same conditions that were
part of the original ESA approval, I don't have a problem with it
now. It was my misunderstanding, I don't know about you, Steve, I
just misunderstood what was happening before, so I don't personally
have a problem with, especially based on the application where I
clearly see it, that they are going to build on the same
foundation. I was my misunderstanding about the wall. Is that ~4,
Klm, in your list of options? Johnson answered, yes.
Garton asked, Gideon, would you point out, because you've attached
an application... Kaufman stated, Farish Hallam Lake Bluff Review
Response to Review Standards, ~2-1. Sheet that says, existing
livingroom wing at the south easterly corner. Halfway through
there, it says, the applicant intends to reuse the existing
foundation for new development and will reconstruct the walls and
roof, so the roof will not extend past the top of slope line.
Hunt stated, my recommendation is to let this go on. I don't think
there was any misrepresentation, I think it's something that I
missed, along with some other people. So, there's no point in
holding up this applicant on this issue. However, I want to lock
firmly the barn door, now that it has been opened, and would like
us to consider something in the remodeled language or demolition
language if more than 50 percent of the house is remodeled or
demolished, that puts the developer at risk of complying with all
required setback requirements, etc. That might have helped us
catch this type of thing. I do have a problem with a remodel of
the house where literally they pull out about six studs and a
little bit of roof, set it over to the side, and that's all that's
left of this historic structure that's being, quote, remodeled.
Kerr stated, we already have that option, Roger. If we had really
wanted to, we could have told this applicant, or any other
applicant, you have to move it back, you can't use that foundation.
Kerr stated, the special condition was the trees; we felt like the
trees were worthy enough of saving and not to change that
footprint. Because of the way the Hallam Lake ESA Review reads we
have the option to do almost anything we want to do, in terms of
demolishing the whole thing, move it back, or whatever. In this
case, we made a finding that because of the trees and unique
circumstances, we permitted them to stay on that same foundation.
61
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 6, 1995
MOTION
Hunt stated, I will move to reapprove both previous special review
and further add the conditions 1-13 on Planning Office memorandum
dated 6-2-95, for the Farish Hallam Lake Bluff ESA Review.
Hooney seconded. Voting commenced, vote was 4 in favor, 1
(Buettow) opposed, motion carried.
Kaufman stated, Roger, the only other question I would have is, so
there is no misunderstanding again, are we to add onto the existing
wall or can we just replace the wall? Hunt stated, I have no
problem with replacing that wall for cosmetic purposes.
Kerr asked, your motion is based on the finding of special
circumstances in this case. Hunt answered, that is correct.
Discussion of Hotion
Buettow stated, I have a problem with that. Basically, I think you
realize that if this was a new house, this wing would not be
allowed in this area and 100 percent demolition is almost the same
as a new house. In this case, substantial construction is being
done throughout the entire house, from 60-80 percent is going to be
totally rebuilt, and this particular encroachment has been enjoyed
for 30 years by Mrs. Farish and I see this as an opportunity to
bring this non-conforming encroachment into compliance on this
site.
Kaufman stated, I need to correct a couple of things. I want to go
back and remind those of you, you weren't on the P&Z at that time,
but the rest of you were; but Mrs. Farish came in when they tried
to impose this on her house, having been there for all these years.
Buettow asked, does she live there now? Kaufman stated, yes. It's
the same lady. Buettow asked, 100 percent of the time she lives
there? Kaufman answered, most of the time, she's been in this town
for 20 years and what difference does it make whether she's a part-
time resident or full-time resident, she came to this particular
group and this meeting and she raised the concerns that she had
about her particular property. The reason we had this special
review, that you are making a finding on, was the P&Z's concession
to her. Because what happened, and I'll read to you from the
minutes, many of the properties on Hallam Lake have as their
boundary, the dropoff that we are talking about. Hrs. Farish is
one of the few properties that not only goes past that, but goes
all the way down to the lake. One of the concerns that she had
62
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 6, 1995
when she came in here, she said, that this application is really
being unfairly applied. In her case, it cuts out 40-50 feet of
what ordinarily would be her setback, where for a lot of other
people, it has no impact at all. The other thing she had at that
time, she wanted to build down and out onto a secondary bench that
she had on her property. Tom Cardamone came in here, and one of
the discussions we had at that particular point and time, was that
Tom was uncomfortable with allowing her to go down and out onto
this other bench, but he specifically said, I don't have a problem
of her going to the top of the slope there if there are mitigating
circumstances such as vegetation. As Klm has pointed out in this
particular memorandum, they have a tremendous amount of vegetations
there. So, when this ordinance was adopted, we knew that Hrs.
Farish would be coming in, that she would be treated unfairly, and
so there was a specific finding made to allow her to come forward
at this particular time. She dropped her request to go back down
and all she is trying to do is go up a little bit, and I want to
remind everybody that for all these years she's had the benefit of
it, it's absolutely not true. We burdened her after-the-fact,
acknowledging that she would be coming in on a particular property
that was surrounded by all these trees and had only a 2,200 sq. ft.
house. I know it's late, but I have quote after quote to read you,
if it's necessary.
Garton stated, I have just one question to the staff. If the
foundation is remaining, is that considered a remodel? Johnson
stated, I would say if it was completely removed, except for the
foundation, I would say, no. In common usage terms.
Kaufman stated, one other thing, just for a comfort level. Right
now, 11 percent of the existing house encroaches after the remodel
is done. Only 4 percent of the new house will encroach. Right
now, the existing facade on that place, 44 percent encroaches,
after this, less than 20 percent will encroach. So you can see
that the addition that's being made minimizes the amount of
encroachment that's taking place.
Heeting was adjourned at 8:50 P.H.
Respectfully submitted,
Sharon M. Carrillo, Deputy City Clerk
63
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 6, 1995