The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutminutes.apz.19950620 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 1995 Chairman Kerr opened the regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission, following the Joint Growth Hanagement Commission meeting with the County, at 5:10 p.m. Kerr requested roll call and attending were: Bruce Kerr, Jasmine Tygre, Roger Hunt, Sara Garton, Tim Mooney, Robert Blaich, Marta Chaikovska, and Steve Buettow. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Chairman Kerr thanked the clerk for completing the minutes from June 6, 1995 in prompt manner. He stated there had been times in the past, when minutes were not completed from six months to a year, for whatever reasons, and may have had nothing to do with staff at all, but he stated it was difficult to remember and make corrections when minutes were completed six months to a year after the meetings. Kerr stated, I do not see on our agenda election of Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson. Leslie Lamont of staff stated, it is not on the agenda, but Sharon and I have already talked about it, and we can do that now at the beginning of the meeting. Kerr stated, with my departure soon from this group, we also need to select someone to serve on the "monster home" committee, for lack of a better term. We don't have to do it now, but it does need to be done at some future time. Lamont stated, staff's thinking on that is that, Amy will be talking to HPC about it. We have members that serve on the Committee; Bob, Steve Buettow, and Bruce. First off, do you want to continue to serve, secondly, Bruce is leaving, so we need to appoint an alternate from the P&Z to be on the Design Appeal Board and our thinking is we would take that list again to Council and have Council ratify that list. Garton asked, the Overlay Committee may go into the Design Appeal Board? Lamont stated, our idea is that we will continue to use the Overlay Committee if those members still want to function like that and if Council ratifies the list. Garton stated, hopefully, the Design Appeal Board may only meet twice a year, right? Lamont stated, there is no set date when they meet, but our hope is that it's a brief meeting once a month, at the most, and it will all PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 20, 1995 depend on how the Appeal Board structures itself. Chaikovska asked, doesn't the Board of Adjustment do the appeal? Lamont answered, the Board of Adjustment would do variances and appeals to the actual code, but what the Design Appeal Board is established to do, is decide when someone doesn't meet our checklist. Lamont stated, there are things that we established in Ordinance 30 that just changed the code, and then, we also just established the checklist. They are different. For example, the requirement is two parking spaces per dwelling unit now. If someone can't meet that, they would go to the Board of Adjustment, they would not not go to the Design Appeal Board. It's in the code. Blaich asked clarification on Hunt's comments in the June 6 minutes. He stated, Roger, you were talking about berms and rocks, and so forth. An example of that is where people are putting all the rocks along the drainage ditches? Is that what you were referring to? Hunt stated, yes. Hunt stated, as of today, Chuck Roth of Engineering, knows that they have put boulders on the street side of the ditch, which he doesn't approve of, and he's going to inform them of that. Hooney stated, I feel like I saw a really good working process from the time that Roger Moore came in with "monster home" fears on what happened on the City Council presentation approval. I think we made a lot of allies and friends because of the way we put the information together and put it out; I hope that we can always work like that. It had the potential to be a very volatile issue and there were a lot of people, because they were afraid and uninformed to what we were doing, potentially who could have fought the issue, but there was good communication, there was good presentation, and overall, I thought it was a tough issue that was handled very well. I think that the staff did a great job to get through the information that they got through. Lamont stated, thanks. Blaich stated, I would like to second that. I had the opportunity to go twice before realty boards; once with Augie Reno, and the next time with the mayor there and, of course, Leslie. I saw this change, this rather dynamic change, and I had a lot of people call me up at home and a lot of people I met at various events, and we went into this whole thing. I just saw this switch, like you said; people who were very nervous about what was going to happen, and I think the key thing, of course, was going through without changing the FAR. I agree with you, Tim, I think it was a very good process, and a lot of people were involved with it, and I'm finding out that the people in the community are asking more questions as 2 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 20, 1995 to how could this process be employed in some other areas. I think it is a very good thing to use as a good example. Hunt stated, I just had an observation today, about 4:20 p.m.; traffic on Hain Street, two lanes backed up between Garmisch and Aspen. That's how far it was backed up at 4:20 p.m. It was very surprising. That's without an HOV lane, folks, and with paid parking. Hunt stated, the other annoucement, I will make, if it's not too late, I will make a conditional application for re-appointment to the P&Z, letting Council know that I have been on it 20 years and if they want to appoint someone else, I won't be terribly upset about it, I guess, but I am available and will commit to the time that they see fit to re-appoint me. I don't particularly want to go to an interview. Lamont stated, it is my understanding that an advertisement has been placed in the papers for Bruce's vacation, and until we appoint somebody, you said you would serve us until the end of July? Kerr answered, my term, as I understand it expires in September instead of July, as I once thought, but what I will plan to do after tonight is only attend if I am required for a quorum. I'd made other plans, assuming that at the end of June, I would be done. I will attend thoughout the rest of my term is we need a quorum or until such time as a replacement is appointed, whichever is the least restrictive. If you need me for a quorum, I'll be here, if possible. Hunt asked, when will I get a so-called application letter? I, Sharon, answered that I did not know, but that I would inquire into the matter and get an application letter to him. Blaich stated, it might be interesting, just for information, of course, to see a list of who is on and when their terms do expire. I, Sharon, have compiled the list and will submit it to the members of the Commission for their information. STAFF COMMENTS Lamont stated, the two comments I had were that we need to appoint someone to replace Bruce on the Design Appeal Board, and then we will take that list to the City Council. Our Tuesday meeting fell on July 4th, so we moved it to July llth. 3 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 20, 1995 Lamont also stated, I would really like to try and see if we could do a special worksession on AH/RO "stuff" before August 1st. Kerr said, we've got the 25th (July) open. Lamont said, if we could do that I think that would help us. Lamont stated, your July 18th meeting, there are only two items, and what I will have then, I will be able to put into your boxes this "cheat-sheet" of the different projects. Hooney stated, I don't know if this is the long way around, or if it is naive to think that this isn't such an enormous task, but if it would save creating an AH zone district in the County that just has theoretical applications, it occurs to me that there might be only so many parcels in the County that might be available for development and I don't know if it wouldn't be just as easy to identify them and find out what is capable of happening there. Let's say, as you move downvalley, we know that it's Bill Braun's Ranch and then, it's Underwood's Property, and you can almost identify parcels that could be developed because of their access to the road or flat building sites, or elimination of 1041 problems. Instead of creating this theoretical kind of thing, this zone district that's out in space; something that somebody may be able to take out and put down on this property, throughout the County, they must know the homeowners that have these properties that have interest in developing these argricultural tracts or these family ranches; do you think they would save time to investigate these big family parcels or these big agricultural parcels and then say, this is the scenario; they have the possibility of building 500 homes on this one, and then, the next rancher, who has the same amount of acreage, has the possibility, because of the 1041, they can only build 100. Then, identify these parcels and build some kind of a scenario for the parcels that might be applied. Lamont answered, to take a 954-acre ranch and sit down and identify what we are applying and what we would get down to is huge ..to write a code hoping to address all that "stuff", that is why our code is so complicated now, because everybody comes in with their own individual problem and parcel in an attempt to meet the code. That's one of the reasons why we want to use PUD and leave site planning up to the particular parcel and the applicants in the surrounding neighborhood. Hary Lackner stated, I think some level can be done to identify the properties that already have big subdivision approvals on them, Aspen River Valley Ranch is one, where they have restrictions against greater subdivision. Now whether or not any of those 4 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 20, 1995 people would re-consider under a 35 or 40 acre parcel to come in and do an age project, and whether or not the County would be amendable to that, because a lot of them do have restrictions against further development; I think the staff could put together something like that and basically just look at the 82 corridor, because I assume that's where the majority of the parcels would be. Hooney stated, here we would be talking about a finite number of places that these applications could occur. It might behoove us to know now just how many possible applications we might have that these zoning regulations that we are trying to format now complies with. Maybe some of these code amendments aren't going to be necessary because there aren't parcels that would need this type of work. Lamont answered, I think you shouldn't forget that the AH zone district is going to be the only game in town. We have two free market units available for competition. In the past years we've seen very little residential competition, it's all demolition and development "stuff". In the County, we have big parcels of land, we want to get this AH zone adopted out there. The bigger the parcel the more problems there are on the parcel, and you throw in the client and the applicant, who has in their mind what they want to get out of it, it is hard to do. We did that in the ACP, we identified in the housing session, we "kinda" said, these pieces of land will be good for low density and multi-family, and we got a lot of criticism. I think that would be an interesting exercise in the longer run. Blaich mentioned, it is supposed to be on a County-wide basis, but if we could have it tapped where we could have some affect on it, at least so we could give you a profile on it, if we got a map like that (referring to map) color-coded with things that you do know and the rest with question-marks; it might cause us to dig into it a little more. Hooney stated, exactly. MINUTES MOTION Hunt stated, I move to adopt the minutes of 6 June 1995. Blaich seconded, vote commenced, vote was unanimous in favor, motion carried. 5 PLANNING & ZONING CO~ISSION JUNE 20, 1995 ELECTION Hunt nominated Jasmine Tygre for the Chair. Tygre declined the Chair, but stated she would like to be Vice-Chairman. Hunt, therefore, withdrew his nomination. Garton moved to nominate Robert Blaich for Chairman. Hunt seconded the motion. Blaich stated he thought there were other people on the Commission who had much more experience. He stated that there was a couple of times a year that there was a block when he was away because of his business and those times could sometimes be up to a month. He wanted to lay it on the table and asked for some other nominations. He asked Sara Garton if she would consider the Chair. Garton answered, yes, I would consider it. Hunt nominated Sara Garton for Chairman. Jasmine seconded. Vote commenced by secret paper for Chairman. 6 votes were in favor of Sara Garton, 2 votes were in favor of Robert Blaich. Garton was voted new Chairman. Hunt nominated Jasmine Tygre for Vice-Chairman. Blaich seconded. The motion passed by acclamation. Tygre was elected new Vice- Chairman. WATER PLACE AFFORDABLE HOUSING SUBDIVISION SPA AHENDHENT, GHQS EXEHPTION, CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW AND SPECIAL REVIEW (CONTINUED FROM HAY 9) Hary Lackner presented for staff, and stated, the applicant has asked that this and the public hearing, come back to a worksession on July 18th, to discuss all the issues you had back in the Hay 9th meeting. Then, the applicant will go to City Council, after they talk to you, in a worksession in formal discussion and talks of policy issues with City Council about this project. The project will either come forward or go away. That is what I have heard from the applicants and if you have anything you want them to specifically address on the 18th, I would be happy to forward that to them. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 1995 MOTION Hunt stated, I move to table any action on the Water Place Affordable Housing, and close the public hearing, and basically establish that they are going into a worksession-type process and will possibly re-enter the public hearing phase. Tygre seconded. Voting commenced, vote was unanimous in favor, motion carried. Discussion of Hotion Chaikovska requested that an explanation of the financing be done on this project. Lackner asked, to see if public funds are used? Chaikovska stated, the explanation that we had at that one meeting was never really adequate; Tim had some questions, I had some questions, and it was never really described fully so that we could understand what public funds were being used. I have some concerns, so I would like to see that. Mary Lackner stated, Alan Richman, with the Aspen School District Text Amendment, Item E., is here, and the representative from North Hill Station is not going to make the meeting, so I was thinking we could move Alan forward on the agenda, so he does not have to sit through these other items, if that's O.K. There was no objection from the Commission, but Hunt did state that he had to leave early and was particularly interested in the North Hill Station item. Lackner stated, we can do North Mill right after this one. Hunt said, O.K. ASPEN SCHOOL DISTRICT TEXT AMENDMENTS Garton opened the public hearing. Mary Lackner represented staff and stated, the Aspen School District has an application in to the Pitkin County and to the City of Aspen to do a land dedication requirement with new subdivisions. It has been heard by the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission, but it has not been heard by the City Council yet or the County Commissioners, and this is the first you are hearing of it. It is enabled in the State Legislation, that school districts can ask local governments to collect a land dedication requirement for new school sites or school facilities that the school may need. I put those citations into your memorandum. PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 20, 1995 Lackner said, the City of Aspen has never adopted this legislation, so that the City can obtain money for the school district through new subdivisions. That's, essentially, where money will be collected; there's an original proposal where it says, all additions of bedrooms on all new development, what we've gone back and done, is new subdivision. So, it is not retroactive to any existing buildings. Staff is recommending approval, and there is an ordinance attached to this and the City Attorney has looked at it, and believes that it is something that the City can adopt. I know that Alan has a presentation also, and if you have any questions, feel free to ask. Alan Richman, representing the Aspen School District stated, Chuck Brandt is here, as well as myself, and Chuck is the President of the School Board. We have been working with City and County staff on this now since really, just before the first of the year. I think we have given this a lot of attention before you have even seen it. It has actually gone through seven re-drafts and before we even got into the part of drafting the code amendment, I spent some time with both Planning Directors, City and County, as well as, with both attorneys; first, to see if we could agree with the methodology, and second, to see if we could all agree if there was authority in the statutes to do this. The school board didn't want to go to all the expense and trouble to getting into the code amendment process, if there was a basic disagreement about it. We have all come to a very clear agreement that there is authority to do this in the State's subdivision statutes, and there are no challenges to the methodology. We are agreeing on that, all along the way. Richman stated, I think one thing we need to know is, that this is not an impact fee. We are very purposely differentiating this from the impact fee. One of the most important reasons is, both Douglas County and Boulder County did adopt school impact fees during the 1990s and they were both struck down on district court decisions. They haven't gone to the Court of Appeals, they haven't gone to the State Supreme Court, there are lots of attorneys around the State who think that those broader courts may actually reverse it, but regardless of that, we're not doing an impact fee. What we are doing, we are using a much more traditional form of regulation, that's a subdivision. Really what we are doing here is proposing a new subdivision standard for new residential subdivisions only. It is residential only because those are the only kinds of subdivisions that generate students. New commercial development PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 20, 1995 doesn't generate students and new lodges don't generate students, it's only the housing that generates students. Richman continued saying, just so you know, this isn't a case where Aspen's on the leaning edge, as we often are in regulation affect, we're really at the tail end here; there are many, many counties and cities that have already done this, and not just the progressive ones, but some of the least progressive cities and counties in the State have this. For examples, Mesa County, which is Grand Junction, which is about as conservative as it comes on the western slope; Eagle County; Colorado Springs; some really, very traditional places. Why are we doing this now, very simply, the school district is experiencing growing enrollments, and has been for a number of years, after a period throughout the 80's of dropping enrollments. (Richman showed a graph of the enrollment periods). Not only are we having increasing enrollments, there is really a demand for a vast, new array of services and facilities, and the school board is looking to take advantage of any opportunities that it can before it goes to the governments for money. Haybe, a way to think about this is, schools are very limited by laws, what they can and cannot do, and they can't put this charge on themselves, they have to come to the City and the County if this is going to happen. What we are doing, really, is what the statutes says that we're allowed to ask you to do. As I said, our methodology is very simple, and it's been widely tested; it has been used in a number of other communities. Richman said, we culminate acreage per dwelling unit in a very simple way; the amount of school land area that is provided per student today, the existing level of service provided by the school today, and the number of students generated per dwelling unit in the Aspen area today. The second one we got by doing telephone surveys on 300-400 households around the valley, so, all this data is generated locally. Richman stated, one of the questions that came up when we presented this before, we have put a maximum land value in the ordinance, in other words, we have imposed a cap on the amount of money that could be obtained from any new development. We have done that ourselves. And that's if cash is being paid rather than land being dedicated. I think we all know that the size of subdivisions in the Aspen area is generally pretty small, and very few subdivisions become land areas that would actually get dedicated to the school district. What's going to end up happening is, probably, people PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 20, 1995 will pay cash instead. The land values that are used to calculate the cash in this area, are obviously, extraordinarily high and the school board just didn't feel comfortable with having an unlimited number. They could be in the 10,000 or 20,000 or 30,000 dollars a unit, and they didn't think that was fair. So, we put a cap on writing some numbers; we decided 150,000 was a maximum land value that we wanted per unit. Just so you know, that would result in a fee of $2,430.00 maximum for a three-bedroom unit, $3,720.00 for four, and $4,260.00 for a five. So, those are the absolute maximums. For free market development, that is probably also what will happen. On the other hand, affordable housing land values are much, much less. Land values, for example at Twin Ridge, (getting these right off of the Assessor's values) are $40,000 which would generate a fee of $648. Centennial is $18,000 a unit and generates around $171. per unit. So, the affordable housing has its own advantage built right into the system to make sure that we're not asking for absorbent amounts from those units. That's where we are at, and I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. Hunt stated, number one, I suggest you set your maximum land value per unit at $150,000 in a certain year's dollars that couldn't be adjusted to the CPl. Number two, I've got a major concern, when I see a studio/one bedroom and it equals 52 sq. ft. Take, for example, the Marolt Housing; now there is a housing complex where, it certainly doesn't generate any school requirement of the music students in the summer, and it is primarily designed as bachelor living in the winter. I don't know if any families live there. Hy question is, why should that type of housing be included? I'm concerned, particularly in the affordable rural housing of the lower category that basically caters to single people, I worry about the rationale that says, that kind of housing owes some school money. Richman answered, in the survey that we did, there were 41 responses and it is in the materials that you have; I had a student generation factor of .05 per dwelling unit, and then multiplying that out by the land per student, I get the 52 sq. ft. (Tables 1 and 2 in the Application for Amendments to Aspen Land Use Regulations, page 5, attached in record). I think you are right across the board, the vast majority of those studios and ones are not going to be family-oriented units, but one out of twenty are probably going to have a single mom or dad with one child. These are average factors. 10 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 20, 1995 There was discussion at random between Richman and Hunt regarding the formula and summary of survey. Lackner asked, do dormitory units, like Roger is saying at Harolt Housing, would they come under studio/1 bedroom or is that a generation that is not listed in there. Because we do have that category of dormitory. I'm thinking it would be exempt. Richman stated, I don't think we enventoried a pure dorm, it is almost inconceivable to imagine sharing a dormitory type unit. Hunt asked, can that be indicated in there? Lackner stated, we can clarify that. That would be approved as that type of housing. Hunt stated, exactly, I don't see a problem with that at all. Kerr stated, in a practical sense, Alan and Chuck, you don't really expect to receive any land dedications, do you? Brandt answered, not in the City, conceivably in the valley, it would be a pretty large subdivision that would generate adequate land. Kerr asked, and the money that is generated, is that to be used for general school purposes; I mean, conceivably, when enough money is accumulated, you can either buy another site for another school or you could conveivably build a house. Brandt answered, they are capital funds only, they aren't operating revenues. Kerr stated, but you can buy other land for any purpose you need whether it's playing fields, school buildings, teacher housing, or whatever, is that right? Richman answered, we specifically listed teacher housing as a use. Kerr stated, but you aren't restricted to that use, are you? Richman answered, only for school purposes, the statutes clearly state that, and as Chuck said, the statutes are very clear, so, it couldn't go to pay teachers' salaries. Lackner stated, those things would be determined at the time of subdivision, and that would be proposed within a developer's application, as the site is going to the school district, and if so, what the use of that is. City Council makes the final determination with the subdivision application if that is an appropriate site for either open space or school buildings or housing. So, that would be part of the developer's process, just so you would be aware of that. Garton stated, one of my concerns is, in the summer you mentioned that the affordable housing will reflect the valuation of a deed- restricted status on what you get for the land value there, and as you mentioned, Alan, really the only game in town is going to be affordable housing, and they generate most of the school population. It's almost too bad you're not going to get enough out of that development, are you? Brandt answered, apparently not, but 11 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 20, 1995 there's a balancing maybe that we have to go through, and I think it is a fair approach. Garton stated, it is fair, because that is what your tax assessment is, and relects that, as well. Blaich asked, what's the percentage of your students that are outside the district, you indicated that's part of the growth. Brandt answered, 30 percent. Blaich asked, and this will affect the areas that they are coming from, or not? So, in fact, anybody coming outside gets preferential treatment? Brandt answered, in a sense, yes. Blaich stated, it seems to me that what you are charging them, the rate, doesn't certainly cover any of that. Richman stated, the actual land dedication requirement is being enacted, or proposed to be enacted, County-wide. If you look at us as one community of impact generation, that does get accounted for. Brandt stated, the one thing I would add is, our out-of-district student enrollment is basically capped at this time, because we wanted to keep the classes relatively small, and by that I mean, about 20 students, and we are no longer letting in other district students in the elementary school and in some of the grades in the middle school because, basically, the classes are full. There are some exceptions, where students come out-of-district, which have been in the system for a number of years. Hunt asked, would you, for the maximum land value per unit, so that you don't have to amend this year after year, adjust that $150,000 or use the term, with 1995 dollars? Richman answered, I think it is a good suggestion. I have put in some language here about a new year update. Garton asked, is there anybody here from the public that would like to comment? There were no comments. Kerr asked, the funds that are collected and held by the City, maintained in an interest-bearing account, is there any provision for a management fee to be put into the City for maintaining this? I'm not suggesting that that be done. Richman answered, the statute definitely tells us that the City has to hold the funds, the funds couldn't come directly to the school district. I think, practically, John Worcester is anxious to see those funds not have a major management responsibility for the City. So, I don't know how that would be addressed. MOTION Hunt stated, I move to recommend adoption of the Aspen School District Code Amendment-Establishing Land Dedication Requirements, 12 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 20, 1995 with changes; one, exempting funds, and the other, either putting in an automatic adjustment factor or the recognition of 1995 dollars. Kerr seconded. Vote commenced, vote was unanimous in favor, motion carried. NORTH MILL STATION SPA A~4ENDMENT (CONTINUED FROM JUNE 6) Garton opened the public hearing. Hary Lackner represented staff and stated, to update you from our last meeting, staff did go back and find some "stuff" from Roger's memory, actually on paper. The North Hill Station (Trueman) is zoned Neighborhood Commercial but also has the permitted uses of the SCI zone. It would also be eligible for the conditional uses of SCI, but those would have to come through the conditional review process. There was also a find regarding the sidewalk. It was in the original subdivision approvement agreement that at a later date the City can ask that a sidewalk be constructed and the developer will pay the City back, or the City can build it and they have to pay the City back within 60 days, along Puppy Smith Street. So, that was something that was originally talked about, but they did not require it back then; they said that at the time it was needed the City could get assistance on that. So, that's something that we are not going to ask as a condition anymore, because it is already built into the appovals. Lackner stated, what I would like to do, and get some feedback from the Commission, is go through the list of 23 items that the applicant has asked to have at Lot 1 of Trueman. I would like an idea from the Commission, if any of these you would recommend to be added down there, what should be conditional, or whether they should not be pursued. On the first and second pages is that list. The bold ones are what we found were added through SCI, and I think the question with most of them would be, when the application comes in we would have to make sure that it does meet the intent of the SCI zone. You can't have constant sales of items, I mean, like a kitchen store; can it be with shops, or can it be like more of a cabinet shop that does improvements to kitchens, I mean, there is a fine line there. We would look at the way SCI is set up to make the call on whether or not that kitchen shop is permitted. So, if we could just go through these. 13 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 20, 1995 Hunt asked, you didn't find anything, as far as the distribution of SCI and NC? Lackner answered, no. Hunt stated, I remember, very definitely that the attitude, when this got approved, was that the basement floor area more or less was the SCI, that didn't mean SCI had to be in the basement, but more or less, the distribution on that basis of the square footage. That was very important back then, and I think it is even more important now, because as we tend to re-zone things, that square footage area of SCI is not recognized, then you will just end up with Neighborhood Commercial uses because that ends up being higher and better use. The side affect is, that they will get more money out of their property and we will lose it as an SCI zone. That's what I don't want to see happen. Lackner stated, the only floor area breakdowns were between residential and commercial, but I don't recall anything between NC and SCI. Hunt asked, do we have an idea of what the present breakdown is between SCI and NC uses, excluding the residential, I'm just concerned about the commercial aspect. We have the commercial bakery there, the hardware store, the key shop, you know, there are SCI uses there. Lackner stated, I don't have that breakdown. Hunt stated, I would, somehow or another, through this process, try to get it established, an approximate square footage area in that entire complex that should be SCI. Otherwise, it makes no sense. Garton stated, since this is an SPA amendment, it would be like we could actually put those figures into the amendment to the SPA. Hunt added, establish, at least what they have now or whatever the square footage is of the basement, that that be the goal for SCI uses in the entire building. Nobody ever cared whether the uses were in the basement or not, that I remember. It was perfectly fine for the key shop to be upstairs. I know no one wanted to eliminate that kind of flexibility in the use of the building. I don't know why that attitude didn't get through in the paperwork. Garton asked, do you think it might be more efficient to just go through with what staff recommends, which is on page 3, and then, if there are objections to that? Blaich said, I have a question I would like to inject before we do that. What affect, if any, does this have on this adjacent property across the street on Puppy Smith? Lackner stated, it has none. Blaich stated, because a number of the things that are not allowed, are over there; for example, sporting shop is over there. Any decision we make on this might have an affect; they may come in and want a variance on what they have. Lackner responded, what this is siting is just Lot 1 of Trueman, and that's where the 14 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 20, 1995 parking lot and grocery store is. Blaich stated, I understand that, but I'm just saying, because it is an adjacent property, if we decide on something, will that trigger something. Lackner answered, their SCI needs to meet those requirements, I think over time the bike shop has expanded from just bike repair to sales. They will have to come and stand on their own merits. Blaich stated, O.K., so, we're not setting precedent here because it is an adjacent property, that someone will say, how come there and not here. Leslie Lamont from staff commented that staff was getting a lot of pressure from that area and was in the process of drafting letters for polling of the area. She stated, what we would like to do, because Hary's done such good work so far in analyzing the uses, we'd like to roll this into, maybe, an analysis of our SCI zone district. The SCI down there versus the SCI here in the Bass Building has become very different, and we need to take into account the buildings next to the river with the Rio Grande Park; we may want to re-think our uses in there. Blaich stated, that's what I was getting to, because there is so much, and one thing is going to trigger another. Lamont stated, there is so much pressure from people to find a way to squeeze in there. Some people have some really great ideas, but the code doesn't allow them to do that. Garton stated, you see on Page 3 what is self-explanatory and what is permitted in the SCI zone district, and staff recommends the following uses be added to the uses currently permitted by right; second hand store, office supply, florist, and catalog store. Is there any discussion? Chaikovska asked, this is specific to this property, as to what we think is appropriate in this property, is that correct? Is that what we are doing here? Lackner stated, what is appropriate on the property, it does have an overlying NC zone, which is the Neighborhood Commercial Zone, so things need to comply with that. Chaikovska stated, there are some things, for example, the sporting goods store, that I heard you comment would be more appropriate in the core, than in here, so it's also subjective? Lackner stated, do you think a sporting goods store is appropriate in the NC zone, is more the question, specifically, on that site? Blaich said, I see that this whole thing is really excluded from the original list; optical lab, sporting goods, clothing/shoe store, and bed and bath. It covered all the others in one form or another, from the original request. Chaikovska stated, I guess, to continue in terms of the ones you are recommending the permitted by right, I guess I 15 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 20, 1995 would think the second hand store would be something that we would want to look at, and maybe, make that a conditional use, rather than a permitted use. To me, it really doesn't fit down there at all, it's more of a grocery, hardware, all supply, kind of thing, rather than a retail clothing establishment. Tygre stated, I really don't like to see a great expansion of uses by right on this property. On the property, you are getting so much pressure for uses that can't quite fit in, but maybe they can. This indicates to me that as many conditional uses as are now allowed, should remain conditional uses, unless we see something that overwhelmingly belongs in there by right. This space seems to me too precious to be able to have additional uses by right go in, unless there is something that got left out in the original intent. That's my position on this memorandum, and I think your analysis is great, but I really would like to put the burden on the applicant to have these great ideas; to be able to come in with a conditional use application and convince us that their particular application really belongs there. Garton stated, my feeling in the last meeting was that, and the Commission feels generally, there should be no additions to permitted rights, especially now that we see permitted rights are accepted under the SCI. How does the Commission feel about expanding the conditional use list? Tygre stated, I think most of the things that are listed in the first paragraph of conditional uses, I agree with Harta. I don't think that a second-hand store is necessarily right, but they might be able to convince us. Hunt asked, is that second-hand clothing or second-hand appliances, or second-hand what? Tygre said, I would like to look into that. I don't want to see retail operations, such as a children's toy store; a bookstore, as much as I like reading, a bookstore is a retail operation. An appliance store is questionable. Furniture shop, children's toy store, bookstore, pet store, to me, are retail operations and I don't really want to see them on the conditional uses. The other ones look O.K. Hooney said, it seems to me there is a hardware store there, a hardware store can sell appliances, can sell locks, can sell lighting, we are getting down to some things like a furniture shop could basically be a lighting store also, unless it is a high-end retail furniture store that isn't flexible because of their decor lines, or something. It seems to me that there are some 16 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 20, 1995 overlapping things. A toy store, it almost could be arts and crafts. Blaich said, I was thinking, basically, the same point, because if you go into the hardware store you can buy a lot of these items. The lighting store that is across the street in the other area, sells furniture also. We are starting to get these dual situations; office supply already exists down there because it started as a place to get your "stuff" packed up and it has turned into an office supply house, not as much as Sandy's, but it is, and it does carry an awful lot of "stuff". I think it is a good use of that facility down there. Catalog store, I don't know, I have some problems with that. Hooney said, I think a garden shop is, basically, a florist, in a lot of ways. They have to service what the public needs are, I think if you have a really good florist they will sell garden supplies. Garton stated, we're not discussing any more uses by right. We are now discussing, and this is correct, only categories that might be added to a conditional use to the Trueman SPA. Staff recommends that last list of four to also be now conditional uses and they would like to see them added by right? I have a problem with that, I would like to see them conditional uses. Hunt said, let's start on the last four here, but I have things up above, as well. The laundromat is already a permitted use in the SCI, so I have no problems with the laundromat. Lackner stated, it is conditional use in the SCI. Hunt said, O.K., I see no problems with the conditional use in the SCI. I think the hardware store, the paint and wallpaper store, and the garden shop, those can also be, the way the SCI has been transitioned, we can include those in the SCI as well. Garton asked, by right, Roger, or by conditional review? Hunt answered, here's my problem. I don't want to make these presently conditional uses in the NC zone district. Lackner stated, just for the Trueman property. Hunt stated, I prefer identifying it, these are SCI uses, and they are able to use up so many square feet of SCI uses on the Trueman property. Garton asked, following what Leslie said about certain uses stemming up because of the drive of the neighborhood, does anyone here wish to propose an addition to the list permitted by right on Lot 1, the Trueman property? There were no responses. Garton asked, would you like to see the use of the conditional uses expanded on the Trueman Lot where the NC zone is? 17 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 20, 1995 Blaich answered, I could see, under the recommendations, the office supply because it exists, and the florist. I question the catalog store and the second-hand store. The second-hand store needs a lot clearer definition for me. I would certainly not want to see it added to the right. Garton stated, let's just go down this list and I'll ask for a raise of hands. This is for additions to the conditional use in the NC zone on Trueman Lot 1. The second-hand store, how many would like to see that? 3. How many for office supply? 4 How many for a florist? 3 How many for a catalog store? (It was not recorded) Garton stated, now adding to conditional uses? Furniture shop? 2 A children's toy store? 2 Bookstore? 3 An applicance store? 2 A pet store? 2 Garton said, the following lists are presently conditional uses and the staff wanted to see them become permitted by right, but we have decided we don't want to see them all permitted by right. Garton asked, how did the floral shop get into the Trueman Property? Lackner answered, it came in as a Beauty Supply Shop because they sell a lot of soaps and body cleansing type "stuff" with flowers and plants. It is excess on the side. Kerr stated, the reason I voted in favor of all of them as a conditional use is because we have the option to review it. Circumstances and times changes, and there may be one of those uses now that we may not think appropriate, but five years from now they may be totally appropriate. If it is there as a conditional use we have the ability to review it, and make case-by-case independent decisions. Whatever it is, I don't have any problem with any of these as conditional uses, I agree that we should not add any of them as additional permitted uses. That was the reason for my vote in favor of all of them. 18 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 20, 1995 Chaikovska stated, I just don't understand the logic of why the majority voted against a florist; to me, that's one of those things that you go into a grocery store, and a hardware store, and to buy some flowers, where would you do that? It's part of that whole type of environment. Personally, I wouldn't vote for the second- hand store or the catalog store or the appliance store, to me they are more browsing type of places than the places where you come to do your errands. Garton stated, my reasoning on voting against it is, I don't want to see that mix be driven out of the commercial core. If suddenly, florists and others are springing up down there because it's a better rent, then, truely, our commerical core will be T-shirts and boutiques. I want the mix up here in the commercial core, I don't want to see that open up to that variety of shops down there. Hunt stated, I think that an optical laboratory could come under the guides of the SCI area, and should we think about adding that to the SCI? Is there a reason why staff didn't recommend it? Lackner answered, I think our feeling there was that a lot of these optical laboratories sell retail. Hooney stated, in talking about Harta's idea about the floral shop, I think there's a redundancy there, I think City Market already sells a lot florist-type things, the Aspen Branch is already in the 0bermeyer Complex which is SCI, and again, to create another opportunity to displace and, Roger, what is a balanced market because of the way it's worked out, I didn't vote against it, I didn't feel like I wanted to all of a sudden open up another area for more competition which would be a redundancy. Buettow stated, the optical shop, the bookstore, the office supply, and the florist were all competing establishments with what we have in the core area here; if we open an opportunity down there, they'll start moving down there when we really want to keep this up here very strong. Then that becomes a mall-like situation down there, and in my hometown they just killed the downtown area, it became a shell. Hunt stated, I would just like to add, it's not only those operations down there, to me, the worst thing is the displacement of the uses down there that could no longer afford it because they just upped the rent. That's why I would, at this point, tend to establish a goal for a balance of SCl-type uses. 19 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 20, 1995 Lamont asked, you mean that via square footage? Hunt answered, yes. Hunt stated, whatever the square footage is presently, the commercial square footage is below grade right now, whatever that square footage number, that's the goal that they should have with SCI uses of that square footage, let's say, plus or minus 15 per cent, or something like that. Garton stated, that's not a part of the applicant's proposal, though. Lackner stated, you could make a recommendation. I don't know if you are expanding any of these conditional uses or not, but from the votes we took, the most we had was three, and that would not be a passing vote. Without you approving anything on the application, I don't think we can put a further restriction. If you were to approve additional conditional uses, you may then want to say, we want to preserve the basement square footage, plus, minus, 15 per cent, as SCI. If you are giving them something, then you can write a condition on it. Garton stated, because this is a public hearing, is there anyone from the public wanting to comment on the requests of the Trueman, Lot 17 There were no comments. Garton then closed the public hearing. Hunt stated, I'm just trying to get something in there, give them a little carrot, somehow or another, so we can get the stick as well. Hooney asked, what were some of the ones that were voted as three. I'll change my vote to give Roger the opportunity to restrict the floor area. Kerr stated, I'm having a hard time understanding why we would permit a garden shop, that has a conditional use in the SCI, but will not permit a florist. That makes to sense, whatsoever, to me. Lackner answered Hooney stating, the four that got three votes were; second hand store, office supply, florist and bookstore. Mooney stated, I change my vote on florist to allow the opportunity to move that into a conditional category, in order to put forth a motion to amend the conditional uses and go along with the applicant's request. 20 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 20, 1995 Hunt stated, it is not a 50/50 thing, because the basement is much less square footage than the entire Clark's Market. It's the approximate square footage of the basement. If you can come up with a number of the commerical square footage of the basement, and say heh, it's this square footage folks, it happens to equal the square footage of your basement, and it doesn't matter where those uses are placed in the complex. Lackner stated, we can say the square footage of the basement, plus minus 15 per cent, and I can look at the plans that were approved. Do you want me to bring the number back to you at the next meeting? Hunt answered, I don't need the number back if you can establish that number. Does this go to Council? Lackner answered, yes. Hunt asked, if you could have that number for Council and explain the rationale for that number and where it came from over the years. Lackner stated, in my conversations with the applicant, I don't think he's going to pursue it to Council with one use. Kerr stated, I really have a problem with this. It doesn't seem like fairness or fair-play or fair-dealing, at all. This "guy" has come here and asked for a bunch of "stuff" and we throw him a bone in order to slap some restrictions on him. In spite of Roger's wonderful memory, if the record is not clear when the developer did his original proposal as to what is SCI and NC, then, that's our fault, that's the City's fault. And I really have a problem with this, picking out one abitrary conditional use in order to slap conditions on him. If I were the applicant, I would say forget it. MOTION Hunt stated, I move to add to the conditional use list those uses we have discussed at this meeting; the florist shop, and the recognition of the entire SCI list of permitted and conditional. The goal is to have the useage split on Trueman, Lot 1, in going back to the original approval, which apparently we can't track, that the square footage of the basement level be for SCI uses, however it is not necessary for all SCI uses to be in the basement, they can be mixed everywhere. Hooney seconded. Garton called for a roll-call vote. Blaich, yes; Tygre, yes; Chaikovska, no; Hunt, yes; Kerr, no; Mooney, yes; Garton, no. Vote was 4 to 3 in favor, motion carried. Discussion of Motion 21 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 20, 1995 Tygre asked for clarification asking, the conditional uses in the NC zone now, remain, even though they are permitted in the SCI, so we are adding no additional permitted uses at all, right? Is that what your motion says? Hunt answered, if they are permitted in the SCI, I don't think each one is permitted as conditional. Tygre stated, the last paragaph of 4, says, the following uses are presently conditional in the NC, are we adding those as conditional or are we adding those as permitted, I'm confused, because I thought we were adding no more permitted. Lackner stated, you are adding no more permitted uses. We were asking if they should be permitted, but they are already in there as conditional. Tygre asked, so we are not adding anything in permitted? Lackner stated, correct. Garton added, but Roger's motion does add florist as a conditional. Tygre stated, I just wanted to make sure I understood the motion. Hunt stated, it does add the recognition of the permitted uses in the SCI. Tygre stated, as conditional uses? Hunt answered, I look at them as permitted uses, because the SCI already has restrictions within the ratio. Lackner stated, the original SPA agreement called out the uses in SCI are allowed on site. We didn't know that until Roger sent us back to do our homework last meeting. Blaich asked, could you clarify for me, Exhibit 1, page 6 for the SCI? So, any of those things could go down there, if there's a way to do it? Lackner stated, you are not approving that, that is something they already have on their property. Blaich stated, if they want to come back now and have appliances, and put rental or automobile repair, all these things; in each case, they would have to be approved? Lackner stated, no, these would come in, and they are allowed by right, assuming they were, the bottom of number 1 says, "Ail of these uses are permitted provided they do not create, etc." Blaich stated, I would have a major problem if this whole thing were to shift into that. Economically, it doesn't make sense. Hunt stated, it is not likely. I would just like to add in the discussion; it doesn't have too much to do with this motion, but I guess I'm a little upset with this Trueman property, generally, because Trueman 3, got through the approval process, and when it went through the approval process, that piece of property was supposed to have nothing but light recreational, but somehow or another after it got through Planning and Zoning Commission and 22 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 1995 City Council, someone got an erasure on the plat and changed things around before it got filed. So, there was a grievous error created by someone between the official approvals and the official filing. Lamont asked, what's on there now? Hunt answered, the City had to buy ?rueman 3 to make the thing whole again for the transportation plan. I'm just sort of wary that this SCI tended to get lost in the shuffle there, possibly in the same way. That's why I'm totally protective of it. Thank God Mary found what little there was in the record concerning it. So, that's my piece and I don't think we're doing anything unfair. Hunt dismissed himself from the meeting due to personal reasons. Lackner asked that the 123 W. Francis Historic Landmark Designation by added to the agenda. It was on the agenda as a tabled item. MOTION Garton stated, I make a motion that we will add the Historic Landmark Designation to the agenda for 123 W. Francis. Mooney seconded. Voting commenced, vote was unanimous in favor, motion carried. 123 W. FRANCIS HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION VICKERY CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT Amy Admidon of staff represented for staff and stated, Leslie (Lamont) has asked, that I very briefly tell you what this project is about, so you won't be confused by the next three items. This is a parcel in the west end that's a 10,000 sq. ft. lot, or so. Jake and Della (Vickery) are requesting landmark designations on the entire site. They are attempting to create two units on the parcel, you can have two detached units with at least 9,000 sq. ft., historic landmark, or not. The idea is that the historic structure will have a very small addition on it and the new structure will be of average size for new houses in the west end. An ADU is being proposed for each unit, the one in the historic 23 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 20, 1995 structure is voluntary, it is below grade as Hary will describe. The one in the new structure is totally above grade; it's required. They will also discuss a code amendment that's related to how the land is owned, a possible lot split is proposed. I think that's a basic summary of what is going on here. This is going to have total zone review at HPC, it's already gotten its conceptual approval. Lackner stated, the worksession is a proposed code amendment that would allow a lot split on an historically designated parcel. What the applicant is seeking or can obtain, right now in the land use code, is kind of a piece-meal of different approvals to obtain, basically, the same ideas, historic lots, but it's a kind of a jury-rigged way of doing it. They would be getting two conditional uses, one on the new and one on the historic parcel. They will be condominiumizing the lot, so he can sell off the new parcel and retain the historic building. If the condominiumization, the sale of land, which is different than a lot split; you can do a condominiumization now, you can't do a lot split now. The only thing is, the Planning Director approves a GHQS exemption for a second house on a 9,000 sq. ft. lot. The applicant has obtained that, that's a lot by right on the 9,000 sq. ft. parcel. The difference of the lots, the code amendment, is that we just make a much cleaner project, instead of just kind of piece-mealing it. Kerr stated, is the landmark designation of subdivided lot, the second lot, the second house, somehow now have landmark designation status? Amidon answered, the entire property. In this code amendment we are going to discuss only what will be available for historic landmarks. It's the ownership that's different than what would be allowed, anyway. The idea is that he would be creating somewhat of a smaller receiving parcel for an historic structure. Kerr stated, I haven't thought this through very carefully, I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind having a landmark designation status for a new piece of property, new ownership, new building; by having designation on that half of it, that creates some additional responsibilities. I don't know what the procedure would be to accomplish what Jake wants to accomplish, I don't have a problem with putting two houses on the lot, having a historic house be designated and get all the benefits that comes out of that designation; I do have a little bit of a problem with the new house, the new lot, having the same landmark. Lamont stated, just one point of clarification. In the R-6 zone district you do not have to have an historic landmark parcel to do 24 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 20, 1995 two detached structures on the property. Kerr stated, I guess what I don't understand is, why not do the lot split, and then designate? Amidon stated, there are other properties that have gone through a lot split and still retained the historic preservation conditional review over the entire parcel. They are still considered as one site, you still have very specific impacts to the original resource and this feature's landscape, and whatever. This is part of the code amendment that I don't think we would want to allow a lot split and then sort of free the other parcel from any level of review. I understand that maybe you are suggesting it shouldn't accrue all the benefits, necessarily. Is that your point? Kerr answered, yes. Jake Vickery stated, I also might be able to add a little to this. The way the code amendment is set up is the maximum FAR for both lots together is the duplex FAR. That's the way the code reads right now. And the only way there is to divide or portion that FAR between the two lots or building sites is through a site specific development or whatever. The site specific development plan is kind of like a hand-in-hand thing, where the two houses are working together on the site and there are variations. Kerr said, like mini-PUDs? Vickery said, it is sort of like a hand-in-hand, or intrical relationship between the two lots that tie them together. Chaikovska stated, I just want to clarify a little bit. What is the FAR for the total parcel? Vickery answered, the FAR is the same, it is set up that way, to be the same. What I ought to do is start with a presentation of the code amendment, so I can hit all these things, rather than answer questions. I can lay out the whole thing and start from stratch. Lackner said, the way we have it set up, we have broken Jake's request into three different areas, since he can do a conditional use on each lot or on each house right now, before any kind of code amendment we were going to hear that, and see if he gets conditional use on one or both houses, or whatever, and take care of that issue. And then do the one land designation because he is seeking that in the parcel regardless of whether he gets the historic lot split. Then, we go into a worksession since we don't have a formal application before us right now, and talk conceptually this idea of the historic lot split; how would it work, is it something you would want to see in the form of an application before you. The proposal he has now he can do without an historic lot split designation, he can do it without historic designation. That's why we are taking the conditional uses forward 25 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 20, 1995 right now, and maybe if we do those and then go to the worksession and just discuss this conceptual. Blaich said, I just would like clarification of Bruce's question. Your question, why would you designate a new structure, historic landmark? I have the same question. I have another question, is this property for a client to move into? Vickery answered, we are purchasing the property and we can't afford the whole property. Blaich asked, so you are going to live on it yourself. Vickery stated, yes. Kerr stated, I think I understood you to say, he could do this without historic designation. So why? Vickery answered, we can do everything except one thing, I can do everything except a condominium. A condominium is where both house owners own all the land together; there has to be a condominium association, a condominium declaration; if I want to do something I have to go and ask the other "guy". It's just a complicated thing; if you've got ten units, you've got common stairs, common pool, common parking, common trash, that's what the mechanism for condominium is really for. Kerr asked, so by virtue of the lot split you are required to condominiumize? Vickery answered, no, but the lot split is what we are proposing to be a really simple way to own it. Lackner stated, there is no provision to do a lot split on this parcel now. There is a mechanism under condominiumization for him to split the parcel, and to sell that other interest. That's the mechanism Jake is not interested in because condominiumization has these "weird" agreements between the property owners. It seems that he can do this project now under condominiumization; it would make more sense in a lot split-type hearing or procedure. It just seems like a better way to clean up the code to allow something like this to happen, but not go through the condominiumization process. Hooney stated (The clerk apologizes, but at this point the tape had to be changed and part of Commissioner Hooney's statement did not get recorded), I'm familiar with the Wyckoff/Billings, two houses on one lot and Wyckoff brought in historically designated housing and put it on the lot next to another more historically designated house. They lived compatiably for a long time, and I sold the Wyckoff house off, and now Billings is for sale separately and it didn't seem to propose any problems or weird situation or stress between the owners, and they, basically, had to take one more step to condominiumize the land, which is legal in the State of 26 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 20, 1995 Colorado, and it's, basically, maybe easier than the actual code amendment to allow it to happen. To make a code amendment, to me, means we don't have the mechanisms in place to do what he wants, I think we do. A_nd I think that condominiumization is something that is a clear-cut path that will allow us not to have to make a code amendment. Lackner stated, the City Attorney had advised staff that the condominiumization of raw land should be something that we should amend, as it is a loop-hole to our lot split procedures. As you know, the recent James West "stuff" we adopted in early of this year limited lot splits to one a year. With condominiumization sitting out there the way it is written is a loop-hole to a lot split procedure. That's a loop-hole we have to clean up, and it's out there now, and Jake has come in before any changes to that have happened. We are going to be tightening that up and we want to find an historic incentive, I think to have this kind of proposal going forward. There are some definite incentives to this kind of text amendment, and Jake is just bringing this forward because that is what he would prefer to do as opposed to condominiumizing. Chaikovska stated, this is only for historic properties that you will make this exception, but how do you feel about that, because, to me, historic properties to be broken up and have a lot of buildings crammed on them, makes it counter-productive. It doesn't look historic anymore. Amidon answered, it is a matter of scale; I agree with you, that what you have right now is a 10,000 sq. ft. lot with one small structure, basically, in the center of it. This is going to involve re-locating it and adding on. A_nd typically, I don't believe in re-locating buildings, but what you would end up with then, is a 1,700 sq. ft. building with a 3,000 sq. ft. addition on the back, or something. That's an exaggeration, but this is a way of lessening that problem and breaking up structures, and getting smaller structures, and no, it isn't absolutely the way it was authentically, but it is a better scale, a better resolution initially than we have been getting on some of these sites. Blaich said, I guess this has been done before, I happen to live in a house where this was done and Bill Clark did it, when he owned a house, and there is an existing house that was expanded as a small little guest cottage right next to it, and it was condominiumized, so I bought it. The rights we have is first right of refusal, and right to approve any major change in the house. If he wants to do any significant change, he has to get my approval. In fact, I went 27 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 20, 1995 to him when I wanted to change the color because the houses had been painted to look similar. I wanted to change it and we just agreed on it. We never had a problem, but I understood, because when I first bought the house, I went to City Planning because I wanted to make some changes. They told me this deal was so bad that they would never do it again. I don't know what the issue was at the Planning Department; the people I talked to are no longer here, but were really livid over what they said was a "boon- doggle'' Hooney stated, when Wyckoff was sold, the City really didn't like the condominium declarations that they had put together, they were lesser documents and not really, well-done documents, and so, they did have to go back and amend their condominiumization by-laws and documents in order to sell the property and the new owner had to go and do this in order to protect his interest in this house that he bought. But they co-habited on the lot, on two houses, owning the same ground underneath two houses very comfortably for a long time. I can see that, basically, it is a loop-hole, and I can see that we would rather have, maybe, the code amendment that you are proposing. Garton stated, since we have accomplished a lot of what should be in the worksession, and keeping in mind that the City wants to close this condominiumization loop-hole, let's just go ahead and let Jake work through the Conditional Use Review for an ADU and then we will proceed to an Historic Landmark Designation, which I know, is somewhat connected to the third item, but let's go with the Conditional Use Review first. Lackner stated, there are two accessory dwelling units being requested; there is one in the historic structure which is below grade, it has lightwells, and the applicant has not shown the entranceway; what is shown in the plans is not covered or protected from the elements, so we have concern with that. It is an approximate 700 sq. ft. unit, that one is voluntary. I think if we can find a way to protect the stairway from the elements, some kind of overhang or shed roof or something, as long as it is compatiable with HPC, that's improved. I know you have concerns with the low- grade units; there is some lightwell in this, we would like to see a lightwell to the south, but then, that's where the driveway is and the garage. So, that's really not feasible. We do have some concern with the ADU in this historic structure, but remember this one is a voluntary unit. 28 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 20, 1995 Lackner said, as far as the unit in the free market house, the new unit, we like that a lot. It's above grade and it will be about 500 sq. ft. It's got protected stairway from the elements, inside it's got nice soft exposure, and we don't have any problems with that one at all. Garton stated, I don't know if I opened the public hearing, so I do so at this time. Garton asked, does the applicant have any problems with the conditions? Vickery responded saying, the only problems I have with the conditions relate to the parking. Vickery made a presentation of the project showing the site plan and stated, it is a 10,500 foot parcel, it is located over by the Red Brick School. It is a north-facing parcel, and our intention is, and we already have taken this through HPC conceptual, to move the historical house over to this side (shown on map), we are proposing an addition of a couple of bedrooms, one is a master- bedroom for us, then, below that, a bedroom for Cody, our child. We're recyling the garage structure and adding a second new garage. The very basic idea is to move as much of the development abilities over to the big site here (referring to map). We will put on a basement, probably an unfinished basement, to begin with, and complete it as we can. This is something that will be done by phases, over time, as we can afford to do it. What we promised the HPC, was authentic restoration, as much as we can, on this historical house and we are trying to set this up so it can be developed by someone else. We have a couple of very large trees, like 75 ft. high and a couple of trees that are about 35 ft. high. The views are out to the south and kind of toward Aspen Mountain; we have really nice views. Vickery stated, just a little history on the ADU, we are volunteering to do an ADU on our site, primarily, one reason is because we may end up having to live in it and rent out the house, or move in the house and rent the ADU out, to help pay for the mortgage. So, that's our motivation for doing that, in addition to wanting to be good citizens. The ADU over here (referring to map) is a required ADU and I brought in a model of the ADU, which I will pass around. The reason I did not bring in the whole model is that we are still in the design phase, and I'm not confortable right now with where I am at in this, but I am comfortable with what we are doing back here with the ADU, so I brought that part of the model with me. This is like a one-story house, we had to actually go in 29 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 20, 1995 and get a coverage variance for this from HPC, because it is all one-story except for the two-story portion that has the master- bedroom above it. We have very little open space; right now there is a grove of aspen trees in here that we are trying to preserve as much as possible, and the reason I don't want to put the parking space here is that I would like to have as much open space and aspen trees in here as I can preserve. It is possible to put parking space in here (referring to map), but what I have decided to do, and I think it is in the memorandum, is to make this ADU, instead of being a one-bedroom unit, make it a studio unit. A studio unit is not required to have any parking, so that's what I would like to do there to resolve that. Again, because of these trees in the front, it has pushed the house to the back towards the alley, so, I just hate to take up this space with cars. We already got this parking waived by HPC. Lackner asked, how many parking spaces do you have on your historical site? Vickery answered, there are two spaces, and there are two spaces here (referring again to the map). Lackner stated, staff's concern on the parking spaces, especially on the historic unit, is in the plans submitted. It showed a total of 7 bedrooms in the historic structure and we didn't feel that 2 parking spaces was adequate. The plans showed a 5-bedroom house and then a 2 bedroom ADU, and that's why I want to have one more space for the ADU. I have talked to Jake and he says the floor plans in the basement showing those additional bedrooms is still questionable, it is not final. Garton asked, how do you respond to staff's concern on the historic ADU about the overhang? Vickery answered, I don't have any problem putting the overhang over the stairs. Garton asked, you mentioned that you needed to sell off the new house and the development was up to them, but it sounds like you are designing it; they will buy the design from you? Vickery answered, what they will get is a design, but I can't build it. So, they will have to do that. Whether it's a developer or whether it's somebody who wants to come in and live there, I don't know who it is; I'm trying to keep the door open as much as possible on that site. Garton stated, but you hope that they buy into the design, it's not a requirement on this parcel? Vickery answered, yes, it would be. They have one of two choices; they can make a minor modification of 30 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 20, 1995 it that wouldn't really change its character or if they want to do something major, they have to start from scratch and recycle through it. They've got to live with the FAR that has been apportioned to that site and they have to go back to HPC and give the whole conceptual review package again. Garton stated, if we should approve the text amendment, from then on, it will always go through HPC review, whether it is burned down? Lackner stated, one thing is, the design for the ADU, if the new unit is changed, there are procedures under conditional use, if it is changed more than such per cent and size, or significant change, that would all come back. Blaich said, I would have a problem if I thought that this was a real possibility that they could then go and do something completely different, and I'm trying to reflect back on the question of historic preservation on a new building. I think what you are trying to do here is consistent with a lot of the goals you are trying to achieve, and I think it is even better, even those two separate structures, than some houses where the original structure was minute and this "monster" historic house was built behind it. There was a house on the west end, I forget the street location, but a small structure was moved over there and then built on the rear. The whole house is designated historic. That's an example, but this other one, which I think is well designed; I'm not complaining about the design, but you go there and all there was was this little cottage and everything else was completely new, but all one house. The difference here, you get two houses, two different families and you keep a scale in the community, which I think is what we are trying to do. I think this kind of an approach is a healthy approach, and I'm willing to bend a little if we have to. Kerr stated, Jake, would it be a fair assessment to say, the problem with the condominiumization, what it does is affect the saleability and the marketability, and in affect, placing incumbence on that other half of the lot. That's really the problem. Vickery stated, I've got the request in for condominiumization through the Planning Director simultaneously, with the lot split, because a) I don't know if the lot split thing is going to happen, and b) I don't know when it's going to happen. So, I'm dual tracking it. I still believe that it's cleaner and it's better to have it single-family lots than a condominium. I'm not sure that I agree that a condominium ownership is all that elegant. Because the way it is, the entire property is owned by 31 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 20, 1995 both entities and anytime you want to do something, you have to go and ask the other "guy". The Condominium Association has to pay taxes, it's just a kind of big chain around your neck and I don't see any benefit to the public wealth for it, I guess is my real point. (There were motorcycles that affected the taping of the conversation between Kerr and Vickery at this point. The clerk again apologizes. ) Kerr and Vickery were discussing bonuses. Kerr asked, the total FAR that you would end up with on each side is, what? Vickery answered, it is in the packet. Kerr stated, let me ask it this way, the total FAR of the two houses is no greater than the FAR of what one house could be on the 10,500 lot, is that right? Vickery stated, right. Garton asked, how do the Commissioners feel about the parking request, Condition 8? Jake mentioned that HPC has waived that, but staff has expressed their concerns. Amidon stated, by the way, just so you understand, the reason HPC waived it, is in the spirit of the new code amendment, only two spaces per unit are required. I understand there is an additional, there's ADUs here, but that was their reasoning. Garton stated, there is room for another space behind a new house, Jake. What do you think of the grass creep? Vickery, I don't think it's good in the climate in our area. I've seen it in southern California, it looks great, but here with snowplowing, I don't think it works well. I just don't want the car there. Hooney asked, where is the car going to go? Vickery stated, it goes on the street or it's so close, and within walking distance to town, you can get anywhere from that location. Garton asked, can you get an RO permit? Is that an RO permitted area? Lackner responded, yes, for all cars registered at the site. Garton asked, any discussion about the parking? Vickery stated, well, it looks like we're not going to get it anyway. I would like it, but HPC has already waived it, but I don't know if it is worth holding up this application. Hooney stated, I would like to see if there is a car attached to this ADU, that they do have the opportunity to park someplace. I think they work as much as they don't work, and if we were to make 32 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 20, 1995 the effort to put them on the property, that doesn't diminish the green space and it enhances the opportunity for someone to put a car off the alley and on the property. I think that's a fair trade-off. I think it gives us the satisfaction when we request to restrict the rest of the neighbors to parking requirements. At least we have some cooperation from everybody. Vickery again showed the site plan and it was discussed at random regarding the parking and possibilities. Vickery was concerned about the open space element. Blaich mentioned the possibility of parking on the street, because they would have a permit anyway. He stated, as long as they have a permit they won't get ticketed. Garton stated, Hary, also, your concerns about the overhang in the lightwell, are they met by Condition #9, "all material representations made by the application shall be adhered to"? Do you want to see us add conditions that the deck will be made larger? Lackner stated she would like the deck to be made larger. Hooney asked, are we in complete compliance with all the setbacks? Vickery answered, the B unit is, the 6,000 ft. unit is in compliance. It depends on what you mean by compliance. I would have to say, no, we're not in compliance. Vickery showed the site plan and the setbacks. Hooney stated, I understand all those points, Jake, but it seems to me that you are then putting the responsibilities on your neighbors of living with a house closer to their setbacks. I'm concerned that there is more usable area between the houses that can be used to keep the density which you are requesting on your lot and not push your density against your neighbors lot lines. Vickery said, right, but here is my argument. This is a one-story, low impact house. It means there is no big two-story wall running down the property line like you see in some places. There is a variety to the form, it angulates out, goes in and out, and creates an open space here (referring to site plan). This "guy" already is only 3 ft. from the property line, on this side. So, I'm asking for flexibility in the setbacks, which is what I asked from the HPC, in order to create a composition that I felt fitted into the neighborhood, although it might not meet to the letter of the setbacks. The variance has already been given by HPC. Amidon asked, but for the 6,000 sq. ft. lot, don't look at it as a whole, don't you meet your setback requirements? Vickery answered, if you were to treat these as separate lots, this lot (referring to site plan) would have a total of 10, it does encroach in this one area right here because HPC was adamant about keeping this portion of the historical house. This one here has the 15 feet required for the 6,000 sq. ft. lot. 33 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 20, 1995 Garton stated, actually, this item is only considering the conditional uses for two ADUs to be located within two residences at 123 W. Francis. Is there a motion? MOTION Kerr stated, I make a motion, with the motion being conditioned on the further approvals that are necessary to create a lot split and everything that goes with it, and text amendment. Based on that condition, I move to approve the Conditional Use for two accessory dwelling units to be located within the proposed two residences at 123 W. Francis with all 9 Conditions as recommended in the Planning Office memorandum. Blaich seconded. Garton asked, so, you want two designated parking spaces in Condition ~8. Kerr responded, I want 6 parking spaces. It's not what I want, it is what staff has recommended. Lackner said, I have a question, since he can do this without the text amendment, do you want to condition this on the text amendment? Kerr answered, I am just saying, it is subject to our other actions, whatever they may be on the parking space. Vickery stated, I don't see what the relationship is to the text amendment versus the ADUs. Kerr stated, I want to remove the condition. Vickery stated, I'm going to ask that you table it then, because I don't know what this is that we're doing. This is a sort of a "screwy" deal, and I prefer that you didn't vote on it. I don't understand what it is that you are doing. Kerr withdrew his motion. MOTION Kerr stated, I move to approve the Conditional Use for two accessory dwelling units to be located within the proposed two residences at 123 W. Francis with 9 Conditions recommended in the Planning Office memorandum. Blaich seconded. Garton called for a roll call vote. Chaikovska, yes; Bruce, yes; Sara, no; Tim, yes; Robert; yes, Steve, no. Vote was 4 in favor, two opposed, motion carried. Discussion of Motion 34 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 1995 Kerr stated, the problem I have with Jake's method is we're approving a conditional use of two ADUs prior to a lot split taking place. Vickery asked, in the interest of compromise, would the Board entertain in putting another parking space on this lot, and forego the parking space on this one, for the reasons I have mentioned earlier. All I'm going to do here is withdraw the application for the ADU, this ties our hands in terms of financing, and potentially find options on how to pay for this thing. If you really feel strongly that it's my ability to work with the Board, if you really feel strongly as a group that a) you can justify that, even though that's a studio, b) that you need it, I will provide it, in the interest of working with the Board. But, I don't know how you justify it since it is a studio. Garton stated, I was going to vote against this motion because I don't agree with conditions in it, in the spirit of the new requirements for parking. Garton stated, next is the Historic Landmark Designation, which is a public hearing for 123 W. Francis. HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION 123 W. FRANCIS Amy Amidon of staff stated, staff and HPC recommend that the P&Z approve the landmark designation finding, the Standard b, e, and f, and this is an historic cottage with some alterations. It is a unique building because, apparently, it must have had a separate unit, sort of a duplex; there were two front porches, two front doors, and most of that will be restored as part of the applicant's proposal. The house will be rehabilitated to contribute to the character of the block again. MOTION Mooney stated, I make a motion that we approve the Historic Landmark Designation for 123 W. Francis on the condition that the three b, e, f, have been met. Blaich seconded. Vote commenced, vote was unanimous in favor, motion carried. Discussion of Motion 35 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 20, 1995 Garton asked, is there discussion on the motion. There was none. Is there anyone from the public who wants to address this issue? There were no comments. Garton closed the public hearing. Vickery asked, do I have to put three cars on both sites? Is that where it ended up? Amidon stated, I don't mean to complicate things, but just for your knowledge, I think we'll have to have some discussion to figure out how the HPC and P&Z members can work together. I understand you have conditioned a conditional use approval on that parking space but those spaces were waived. So, I think we will just need to clarify that. Vickery added, plus the fact, that's a studio, and there's no requirement for a parking space for a studio. I don't see how you can do it, in good conscience, to tell you the truth. Lackner stated, just to let the Commission and you know, you can find under conditional use, the need for additional parking, than what is specified for ADUs. Vickery asked, what happens with the HPC "stuff", I mean, it all goes down the drain? Garton stated, that's interesting, Jake, I wanted to ask that, but we have a ruling on that. Lackner stated, we'll run that through the attorneys. Hooney stated, I think that is something we need to clear up, who has final say on parking, because we have run into this before. Lackner stated, I will look this up and report at the next meeting. The Clerk was dismissed and the regular meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. The Commission continued in a worksession. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Carrillo Deputy City Clerk 36 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JUNE 20, 1995 37