HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19950808 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 8, 1995
Chairperson Sara Garton called the meeting to order at 4:40 p.m.
Present at the meeting were: Sara Garton, Roger Hunt, Tim Mooney,
Steve Buettow, Marta Chaikovska, and Robert Blaich. Excused was
Jasmine Tygre.
COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS
Garton stated, first of all, Leslie, the dish for KAJX is the wrong
color. I went to take a look and my suggestion is to paint it the
color of the cement block, as it is a better blend than what is
there already, it is a deeper red.
Garton also stated, I have a request. August 22nd we will be doing
a review of an ADU for the Sam Korn residence on Cemetery Lane, and
I have a request from several home owners that called me to have
that moved into September because they want to attend the public
hearing, and several of the neighbors, except for one, will be out
of town because it is their time for vacation. They would like it
when school resumes. Lamont asked, did they give us a date?
Garton stated, they just said anytime in September that would work.
Lamont stated, that would be the 5th or the 19th. I need to ask
John Worcester if that is possible, if the request is not made from
an applicant, but it is coming from the P&Z, and coming from the
public, can we do that, I don't know. Garton stated, and do we
need a motion to move it, as well? Lamont answered, we would still
have to open it, and move it, because it has been advertised for
the 22nd. Garton stated, so, on the 22nd I would do that. Lamont
stated, right, we would open it and continue the public hearing
date, for those people who have received notice, but are not here
tonight, for example. So, we would have to officially move it to
September 5th, but my question to John is, can the P&Z move
something to the 5th. I'll ask him and you will know by August
22nd whether you can move it or not, O.K.?
PUBLIC COMMENTS
PLANNING & ZONING COH~ISSION AUGUST 8, 1995
Garton asked, are there any con~ents from the audience regarding
anything that is not on the agenda this evening? There were none.
STAFF COMMENTS
Lamont stated, I would just like to first thank Bob Blaich for
hosting our going away dinner for Bruce at his house, it was very
nice. The Commission applauded Commissioner Blaich.
Also, my suggestion, before the three of you came in, that we
switch Old Business and the Work Session because Dave Tolen and
George Krawzoff will be talking to you about the ADU Survey, and it
is just me with you all with the AH/RO. I want to cut short our
AH/RO Discussion, so if we could switch those two? Garton asked,
do we need a formal motion to do it? It was agreed a formal motion
was not required and the switch was agreed upon by the Commission.
GOLDSBURY CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW
FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT
Garton opened the public hearing.
Lamont represented staff and made presentation stating, this is a
Conditional Use Review and the applicants are requesting to
legalize an existing accessory dwelling unit that is on the
property. They propose to go through some renovation of the home,
and realize that they have a bandit unit and they are in the
process to legalize their accessory dwelling unit. There will be
some exterior changes to the accessory dwelling unit and there will
be a slight expansion of the accessory dwelling unit to the rear of
the unit. The unit is 107 by 48, so, the parcel is eligible for a
floor area bonus of up to 250 sq. ft. or half the size of the ADU,
whichever is less. The ADU itself, is approximately 516 sq. ft.,
there is an exterior exit to the unit; currently, it is a protected
access to the ADU, but with the renovation of the home they will
need additional extended porch and roof overhangs. There are
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION AUGUST 8, 1995
actually two entrances to the ADU, one in the front and one in the
back of the accessory dwelling unit. The dwelling unit is occupied
and I don't know if it has been occupied by the same person for
several years, but the applicant's representative says that the
caretaker unit has been used for many years as just that.
Staff recommends approval of this accessory dwelling unit with
pretty much our standard conditions of approval, however, I would
like to point out one unusual condition of approval for our typical
ADUs. When this property went through the lot split process of Lot
A and Lot B, before it was the Ben Deane Subdivision; a trail
easement was given to the City at that time. Chuck Roth, at a site
visit, and in looking at the plats, has determined that easement
may be problematic, and so, I'm recommending that the applicant
work with our Parks Department so we can solidify that trail
easement, and since the City now owns all that Headows land area
right next to this property, it might be a good time for the Parks
Department to diligently work with the applicant to get our trail.
So, that's why I included that condition of approval.
The Affidavit of Posting was not presented, but a photograph of
posting was presented to the clerk by the applicant's
representative, Nicole Finholm, Finholm Architects.
Garton asked, Nicole, do you have a presentation?
Finholm answered, I don't, other than I might wish to address the
Parks rule. We have had the same employee living in the unit for
several years, he's been there for at least 15 years. We hope he
will stay on with us after we remodel it.
Garton asked, do the Commissioners have any questions of the
applicant or staff? Do you need anything clarified?
Hunt stated, I do have a question about the overhang on the south
elevation and possible snowshedding there at that entrance to the
unit. Has there been any snowshedding problems?
Finholm responded stating, no, because the overhang extends 3 and
1/2 feet. Hunt asked, is the overhang the dotted line there
(referring to drawings)?
Finholm answered, yes. Hunt stated, O.K., fine.
Garton stated, before I ask for questions from the public, I want
to remind them that what our purview here tonight is to review and
legalize an accessory dwelling unit, and to be sure that it meets
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION AUGUST 8, 1995
the requirements of the code, which has been answered in the
memorandum.
Garton stated, I have a couple of questions regarding the
compatibility of the code. One is, parking space requirement, it
isn't actually defined or mapped out here on the blueprint.
Finholm stated, we have parking spaces for all persons in house,
plus private parking spots for the ADU unit. Garton asked, where
is that on the blueprint? Finholm showed on a site plan where all
the parking was. Garton asked, so, you have five spaces for how
many bedrooms? Finholm replied, we have five bedrooms, and we
actually have eight spaces with the garage.
Lamont stated, let me just add for clarification, remember, we
changed the code to one or two parking spaces per dwelling unit,
not for bedrooms.
Garton asked, also, in Chuck's memorandum, he mentions about the
public trail easement, which we want to address. He also says that
Sneaky Lane carries a public pedestrian easement. It is a private
road, and is that true, there's a pedestrian easement?
Finholm answered, it is my understanding that on Sneaky Lane there
is a utility access easement.
Lamont added further comment and stated, we discussed many
alternatives, and our understanding is that there is an access,
public utility access easement on Sneaky Lane, and it is not a
private pedestrian easement. But we can go through that.
Garton asked, and we don't have a map to show what you would like
to have widened? Lamont stated, no, that's why my condition of
approval recommends that they work with the Parks Department to
figure out what kind of easement we would like, what kind of trail
we would like because they have easements on the other side of the
creek also, and where it would hook up and how it would hook up.
Garton asked, is that agreeable to you, Nicole, and to the
applicant? Finholm answered, yes, it is.
Garton asked, any questions or comments from the audience about
this application for an accessory dwelling unit? There were none.
Garton stated, in that case, I entertain a motion.
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION AUGUST 8, 1995
MOTION
Hunt stated, I move to approve the conditional use of affordable
housing unit at 700 Sneaky Lane with Conditions 1-8, Planning
Office memorandum dated 8 August, 1995, finding that it meets all
the review criteria. This is also conditioned on the applicant
getting the address list for the Public Notice to the Planning
Office. Blaich seconded, voting commenced, vote was unanimous in
favor, motion carried.
616 W. HOPKINS CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW
FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT
Garton opened the public hearing.
Mary Lackner of staff presented and stated, David Brown is here
representing the applicant. The Commission noted that plans of
the site were not included in the packets and Lackner apologized
for the oversight.
Lackner stated, staff really doesn't have any concerns with this
project, we do have some typical recommendations for conditions.
It is a demolition and reconstruction of an existing house, it has
received approval through Ordinance 35, Design Review Standards.
We recommend approval of this project. Lackner stated she had
another set of plans which she passed onto the Commission for
viewing.
Garton asked, does the applicant have a presentation?
Brown replied, a brief presentation. The existing house will be
substantially removed, the only thing that will be remaining will
be the fireplace, so, it is a very different house than the
existing house. As Hary noted, it has already been throught Design
Review Approval. One category in the site plan, on the first
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION AUGUST 8, 1995
floor, when it went through the Design Review, that plan shows an
encroachment into the side yard setback on the west side. That was
not approved at the Design Review and that will not be part of it,
so we would literally "squish" it into the setback to make the ADU
work and do some slight internal modifications to conform with the
Design Review. Another thing I noticed today in reviewing the plan
that I feel very bad about, there is not a dormer over the entry to
the ADU. I throw myself prostrate before this body and plead for
mercy. We will put a small dormer over the entry to the ADU
whether this body asks for it or not. Substantially, we agree to
all the conditions of approval and this ADU is above grade with
access off the street, has light and air ventilation, private deck,
so from my standpoint, I think it would be a nice, if not terribly
luxurious, unit. It is about 315 sq. ft., give or take.
Brown stated, a couple of the conditions, we'll start with the big
one. Staff is requesting on-site parking because this is along a
pedestrian bikeway. I completely understand and concur with the
request for off-street parking, however, in discussion with my
client's representatives and my client, the ownership feels that
this project that is designed meets the goals of the ADU ordinance.
The ADU ordinance does not require off-street parking and my client
does not wish to provide off-street parking designated for this
unit. The five off-street parking spaces shown, two in the garage,
three off the alley, and if this unit does become rented out, I
think in all likelihood there's a good chance that the off-street
parking space; my client wishes to make the representation, that
that is guaranteed.
Garton asked, how many bedrooms does it have? Brown answered, the
way it is shown, right now, it would be five bedrooms, two in the
basement, three upstairs, actually, it's two, plus a study, which
would be construed at the Planning staff level as a bedroom, so, it
would be five bedrooms, plus an ADU. So conceivably, as it is
currently drawn, it will be a six bedroom facility, including the
ADU, or five bedrooms, plus the ADU.
Garton asked, you say there's five parking spaces on site?
Brown stated, there's five parking spaces on site, two in the
garage and three behind; two behind the garage, and one to the side
of the garage.
Hooney asked, where is 6167
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION AUGUST 8, 1995
Brown answered and explained the location of the property to
Mooney.
Garton asked, what is the other condition, David, you have changed
something?
Brown stated, well, we will have to redo the first floor, because
it sticks 5 ft. or so into the side yard setbacks. We were hoping
to retain that portion of the existing house in the side yard
setback and the Design Review Committee, in its infinite wisdom,
didn't go for it. So, what can I say. It wasn't another
condition, it was in another review.
Buettow asked, so, in this first floor plan here, where you are
going to eliminate that encroachment there, so you are going to
redo this whole area (referring to the site plan)? Brown stated,
the whole area will be re-completed.
Mooney asked, where is the main entrance to the ADU? Brown
answered, it is on the west side. If you look at the site plan, it
is on the southwest corner, facing west. Brown showed on the site
plan. Mooney stated, O.K., I got you.
Hunt asked, do you have sufficient sound installation between the
units. Brown stated, not yet, but we will.
Lackner stated, I just want to make sure you understand staff's
position about requiring the parking space. We do think that is
important.
Brown stated, I completely understand and in another quorum, I
might concur, but on behalf of my client, I cannot.
Garton asked, are there any comments from the audience regarding
this application?
Martha Madsen, the neighbor from the west, stated her concerns; she
asked clarification on the height of the roof and voiced concern
regarding the parking. Brown explained to Hadsen using the site
plans to assist in his explanations to her. There was much
discussion at random between Brown and Hadsen, and Hooney, and
Garton asked to have the conversation directed more toward the
Commission. Hadsen stated she had ten apartments with fifteen
people living in her building, and she had had a parking problem
and increased the parking in the alley. She stated there was quite
a collection of cars on West Hopkins, that was why parking was such
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION AUGUST 8, 1995
a concern to her. Hadsen stated, we have a courtyard to the east
of this project, and grass doesn't do very well, and it is the only
space we have. Everytime a building goes up higher we get boxed
in.
Garton asked, Bob and Steve, did the Design Review Committee
address the stepping down to the adjoining building in the
neighborhood? Did staff look at that?
Lackner stated, no, that was before the new guidelines came out.
So, he came through Ordinance 35, and Ordinance 30 had a different
view of that.
Brown stated, (showing on the site plan), however, this is the
street elevation and in the middle of this are two substantial
spruce trees. So, the impact on the street, and this was in
discussion with the Design Review, would not be terribly changed
from the existing, because those trees would be maintained. This
does set down the facade and will continue to set down on the
facade. This eave is lower than the height of the Hadsen
Apartments, although on that side there is a one-story shed,
carport, one parking space on the side of the building. The intent
is to create a one-story feeling across the street facade,
regardless, with a one-story porch, a single-story livingroom
element, so you keep the small character of the Victorian
flavorings of the community.
Garton asked, are there any other comments from the audience
regarding this application?
Meta Packard Barton, a visitor to Aspen, stated, I have many
friends in Aspen, and have been coming here over the years. I want
you to stop me, if I am out of order, but I'm not sure I understand
your process completely. Hy question was, I have been interested
in trying to purchase real estate in Aspen and consider myself as a
potentially good citizen, having been trained in medical psychology
and having a CPA designation. For the last three or four years I
have been looking for property, and there happens to be one
property in which I think the house is perfect, as it is, for
someone like me. I did place a bid on this house within the year
in which the current owner purchased the house, and I had offered
$100,000 more than he purchased the house for and I was turned
down. Hy question to this committee is, I walked through the west
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION AUGUST 8, 1995
end over the weekend and there seemed to be just a hugh enventory
of these large properties with additional units, and five bedrooms,
and so forth, all of which are million dollar plus properties. Hy
concern is, whether this group and the citizens of Aspen, really
want to limit future property owners, to people who can't afford
multi-million dollar places or they really want to keep some of the
buildings that you have to get a diversity to stay within the
budget for some other people who might be desirable citizens of
this community.
Garton stated, thank you for your comments, and that is a concern
of all of us. We have a couple things in place in Aspen, and one
is, an historic list of homes and properties that are preserved.
Secondly, we have an affordable housing program, which is trying to
meet the demands and keep the community of mixed character, and we
have already been accused of social engineering on that one. The
third is, a new ordinance, Ordinance 30, which is when a property
is turned over it must respect certain character guidelines and
other requirements, which is a new way of measuring the bulk and
mass of the building, and that is all we can do. We can't look at
what someone's income is, unfortunately, when one purchases a home,
or what their intent is with the property, whether or not they meet
the codes, but it is a concern of all of us.
Brown stated, I would just like to add to it. One of the goals of
the ADU Program is to bring more dwelling units into the enventory
that would be within the reach of a broader group of people.
Barton asked, so, would that be considered as subdivision.
Garton stated, no, what we are doing tonight is a conditional
review for a piece of property because it exceeds its floor area
ratio, on the parcel, it has already gone through Design Review.
What we are doing tonight is approving a conditional use, which is
called an accessory dwelling unit, which must be part of the new
home. It is, hopefully, to house the working population.
Barton asked, but it cannot be sold separate?
Garton stated, and it is not sold. It is not condominiumized.
Barton stated, it does not provide additional lower costs.
Brown stated, it could. Lamont stated, a lower cost eventually.
Barton stated, but I'm talking about personally, for profit, here.
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION AUGUST 8, 1995
There was discussion at random regarding ADUs between Lackner,
Garton and Barton at this point.
Hooney stated (to Barton), you were willing to buy the existing
house and give the current owner a $100,000 dollar profit, but we
can't do anything about how much they want to get in return. They
are building a spec house, obviously for profit. We can't help
manage who gets into position.
Brown stated, if I could comment because I share a lot of the
concerns I'm hearing. On behalf of my client, one of the goals was
to get an approval so that they could market this property. This
is not a fact, that it will be torn down and replaced. Someone
could buy this house, with or without this approval. Haybe someone
wished to negotiate a relationship with the current owner, so that
is outside the purview of this body. But, this is not a bad deal,
and if we approve this or don't approve it, it still is not a bad
deal. Any buyer could choose to leave it the way it is and let
this approval go away. So, we're not trying to hide anything here,
it is strictly trying to show a potential buyer an improved
alternative to the existing. I happen to disagree with some
members of staff and some members of the Design Review, but I think
this is more in keeping with the character of old Aspen, than the
existing house, which I think was a cute house for 1973 or 1965,
but it is very contemporary and it doesn't have some of the
historic flavorings that this might have.
Garton stated, now, I'll get back to the conditional use review,
but I think that detour is alright, it is always good to remind us
why we are here and the work we still need to do.
Hunt stated, I'm strongly inclined to keep 7-e., which is the on-
site parking requirement for two reasons. Number one, it is a spec
house, and number two, there is a parking problem in that immediate
vicinity so, I think it is only right to require that at this
development. As far as the roof height, I don't see going into
that at this point, it is within regulations.
Blaich stated, it is my understanding, if we were to approve a
motion, 7-e. is automatically in there. I just think there is a
question of wording because 7-e. says, the final site plan shall
indicate an on-site parking space for the ADU; previously, in the
memorandum, planning said, as long as one of the spaces is
specifically designated. Is that wording precise enough, an on-
10
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION AUGUST 8, 1995
site parking place? As I understand it, your client is saying,
they will take one of the other places. Hy understanding is that
staff wants us to word specifically, designate it so that that is
guaranteed that the ADU has a parking place. So, I would only
suggest that e. be strengthened.
Hunt stated, O.K., how about, the final site plan shall designate
an on-site parking space for the ADU? Lackner stated, we could
say, specifically designate a parking space.
Blaich stated, I don't care which one, if it is in the garage or
outside, but a place for the ADU, otherwise, they could say, there
is a space but somebody else took it, it's too bad. Those things
can be very loose later on. I would like to see it firmed up, I do
think there should be a specific recommendation.
Garton asked, to say, specifically designate, that would be alright
with you, Robert?
Blaich stated, yes, to be specifically designated, which is firmly
used earlier in the draft.
MOTION
Hunt stated, I move to approve conditional use for the
approximately 312 sq. ft. affordable housing accessory dwelling
unit at 616 W. Hopkins with Conditions 1-9 on Planning Office
memorandum dated 8 August 1995, except that 7-e. shall be changed
to read, the final site plan shall specifically designate an on-
site parking space for the ADU, and finding, otherwise, that it has
met all the review criteria. I will add Condition ~10, that a
provision to prevent snowshedding for the accessory dwelling unit
shall be provided over the entrance. Blaich seconded. Voting
commenced, vote was unanimous in favor, motion carried.
Discussion of Motion
Hooney asked, does this mean if this passes, then, the applicant is
required to comply with all this or pay cash-in-lieu?
Lackner replied, no, he still has a chance to pay cash-in-lieu. The
other thing that David just whispered to me, he would like the
dormer to be a condition of approval.
VICKERY CODE AMENDMENTS
11
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION AUGUST 8, 1995
(TABLED FROM JULY 18)
Garton opened the public hearing.
Lackner of staff presented, stating, this is a request for an
Historic Landmark Lot Split Text Amendment. The applicant is
looking to allow in the Land Use Code, in the R-6 zone district, a
splitting of historically designated parcels into two lots that
would be non-conforming under the current R-6 lot requirements.
This request is being requested not to be counted in the pool of
growth that we have recently changed to limit to only one a year;
it would be exempt from that pool. So, these things would be
allowed as long as the parcel complies with the lot area
requirements and the other provisions we have in the code, they are
not limited per year; it is an exemption we are encouraging for
historic lots to create this ownership separation. Essentially, it
is for lots between 9,000 and 12,000 sq. ft. in the R-6 zone
district. Initially, we had talked about expanding this into some
of the other zone districts, RMF, Office, and R-15, however, when
we looked at those zone districts more closely, the second unit on
those lots, is a conditional use. One thing we don't want to allow
is a creation of subdivisions for conditional use; what we want to
do is open this up to where it is currently permitted in the code
and that's why we have left it to the R-6 zone district.
Lackner continued stating, there are several aspects to this code
amendment. What it would take is, it would be reviewed by the
Growth Hanagement Commission, as that is where lot splits will be
going now with the new revisions to growth management and there
would be a set of standards they would look at, if the property is
historically designated, how big the lots are, those kinds of
things. They also have some ability to look at the project's
compatibility to site design on surrounding properties, those types
of general review.
Lackner stated, one of the recommendations from staff on this
project, and as with some things, not everyone agrees, that we have
asked that the creation of these lot split parcels not be able to
obtain the FAR bonus available in the HPC Program. That is a 500
sq. ft. bonus. We have competing ideas on this, but that is the
one way we have drafted this, and the applicant is in substantial
disagreement with that requirement we have put into this draft.
We talked about this at the worksession, where everyone felt it was
O.K. that the Historic Lot Split can go down to a minimum 3,000 sq.
12
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION AUGUST 8, 1995
ft. lot as that is a traditional townsite lot size, 30 by 100 feet,
so, it ended up that those provisions have been put into the R-6
district, that if you create a lot split, you can go down to a
minimum of 3,000 sq. ft. as long as your historic house isn't
located on a non-conforming size parcel.
Lackner continued stating, I can answer specific questions, I think
more will come up, but I think that is the general overview, and we
feel, as drafted, staff can recommend approval of this code
amendment. I think the FAR bonus issue is definitely something to
discuss. I know Jake has some "stuff" he wants to go through with
you.
Jake Vickery, applicant, stated, first of all, I want to review the
purpose of this program; there's about six or seven purposes, I'll
just read them all out. First thing, to increase the flexibility
of dealing with historical resources; secondly, to increase the
incentives given to landmarks to encourage new landmarks; thirdly,
to offset the renovation costs of historical structures; fourthly,
to encourage more reasonable and authentic restoration efforts and
strategies; fifth, to provide designated deceiving sites for an
historical structure (we've since taken that one out, I think); we
also want to reduce the amount of demolition with historical
resources; and simplify the methods of ownership of historical
properties. That sort of summarizes the intent of what we are
doing. I might add, in a kind of editorial way, that the affect,
as I visualize it, is to create more smaller houses and fewer
larger houses; create smaller units of density which have less
impact than larger units of density. Smaller houses are really not
being created these days, and these smaller houses would better
serve the needs of the local, resident famililies and singles. It
is kind of a counter measure to the production of the large homes.
These smaller houses would balance the mix and fabric of the town,
be more in scale with the traditional historical character, and be
more available, potentially, for local families.
Vickery continued stating, the corner unit that I initially
planned, as I proposed it, was intended to be, actually, a very
simple one in which all that was happening was that one could now
through the code, end up with a condominium ownership, you could do
the same thing, but end up with a single-family lot ownership.
Everything else, in reality, or the intention was supposed to be
like what you can already do with the code. It was really simply a
change in the form of ownership. The code amendment as regarded by
staff has gotten, in my mind, a lot more involved and a lot more
complex, in terms of the issues. We had a meeting this afternoon
and I tried to understand what staff's concerns were; they seem to
13
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION AUGUST 8, 1995
be looking out quite a ways in their perspective that I didn't
initially know about, and so, I think the two things that I want
to, I guess, focus on; as proposed by staff, this code amendment is
unworkable for my project. That's not to say it is not a good
idea, but the way they proposed it, by forcing or not allowing the
bonus in the use for the historical landmark properties, in my
mind, creates a disincentive rather than an incentive to landmarks,
and a major obstacle to the way I have intended this thing would
work.
Lackner stated, one clarification, since Jake just covered the
point about condominiumization, currently, he can do separate
ownership of the historic parcel and a new house through
condominiumization which is approved by the Planning Director. The
City Attorney has advised staff that that condominiumization
exemption or approval by the Planning Director needs subdivision
approval process. So, that condominiumization approval by the
Planning Director; we have been directed to change that to follow
the subdivision process and would go through those standards. So,
that is something that we have been advised as being closed. Jake
drafted this code amendment with the vision that the Planning
Director would sign off on the lot splits. The reason staff
revised it to go to the Growth Hanagement Commission is we are
narrowing the existing lot split provisions in the code that is for
lots 12,000 sq. ft. or greater, and we feel the Growth Management
Commission was created to look at growth and lot splits and they
are the appropriate body to be reviewing this. So, that is just to
clarify, if you have questions about condominiumization. We have
been advised that that needs to be taken out and we feel you will
be seeing that before too long.
Vickery stated, just to focus the dialogue a little bit, let me
tell you where I'm at with this thing. First of all, turn to the
review standards that we have in the memorandum here. I think I
can say that there is pretty much agreement between myself and
staff on items B through H, and that is the main body of the
"stuff", but where we are falling apart, and need some more room
for work is on A and I; in both those cases, the memorandum refers
to the revisions that staff has made and I would prefer to stick
with the amendment as I proposed it. Those two standards, I think,
we need to look at in a little more detail. In terms of staff's
recommendation at the end of the memorandum, what I would like to
do is eliminate number 4, no, not number 4, but eliminate the
second part of number 4 where it says, the only HPC variance
permitted for the Historic Landmark Lot Split are setback variances
found to be required by the HPC. Also, eliminate number 5, which
14
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION AUGUST 8, 1995
says, the historic landmark FAR bonus is not permitted on any lot
created by the Historic Landmark Lot Split. I would like to see
the bonuses and the full historical program for these landmarks
maintained without compromising the situation. I don't understand
why these particular things have been added to this code amendment,
I think it is mixing two sets of jurisdiction, and it ends up being
a stange mixture of "stuff".
Garton stated, Roger, before we ask questions of the applicant and
staff, Amy, do you have any presentation as to why you did add some
things?
Amidon answered, well, actually, I'm not amongst the staff who
participated in writing the memorandum, and I agree with Jake, that
I think the FAR bonus should be retained. Jake and I did a quick
study today and this seems to be an issue of some confusion between
City staff, P&Z, and HPC. In the last, a little over two years,
since I came here in May of 1993, there have been only two FAR
bonuses awarded to an HPC project, and I think sometimes people
have perceived that we are giving them out left and right, and that
isn't the case. And, the same goes for the setback variances, the
site coverage variances, and given the restriction that Jake is
proposing here, where only the duplex FAR is allowed for the
property. The FAR bonus can be very important; I don't think we
should weaken the program by eliminating it, I don't think it is
fair, and I don't think it has any connection. There doesn't seem
to really be any justification for it. That 500 sq. ft. doesn't
represent additional growth.
Lamont stated, I just want to clarify the R-6 Zone District. The
total floor area ratio for two detached residential dwelling units
on a lot of 9,000 sq. ft. or greater shall not exceed the floor
area lot of a duplex.
Garton stated, you are supporting staff, Leslie?
Lamont stated, I'm just pointing out that the code already limits
the floor area for two detached units on a parcel of 9,000 sq. ft.
or greater to a duplex. It already limits it.
Lackner stated, except, I think what Jake is clarifying, is that
when he is creating the two parcels, it is a 9,000 sq. ft. lot, you
are creating one 3,000 and one 6,000. The R-6 Zone District says
for a 3,000 sq. ft. lot, a single-family home can have x, and a
6,000 sq. ft. lot can have x. So, instead of adding those two
15
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION AUGUST 8, 1995
together and getting two single-family home sizes, which is a lot
bigger, instead of having it calculated independently from what
they can have on a single-family home on each, he is limiting it to
a duplex for the whole parcel, which is 20% less.
Lamont stated, no, if this code amendment is not adopted to allow
the lot split we all agree you could do two detached homes on this
parcel and condominiumize these. But the floor area is that of one
duplex. It's the lot split, that we all agree to do the lot split,
you should not maybe be able to get the floor area for a single-
family home. But you are not proposing even more than you can
already do.
Vickery stated, exactly, like I say, the whole purpose, the whole
structure of this thing was to do exactly what you could already do
by the code, except end up with single-family lots instead of
condominium ownership. I would like to circulate this around; it
is a worksheet for you "guys" that I made, and what it does, it
just summarizes the FAR, single-family duplex FAR per size of lot.
Then it shows you increments.
Lackner stated, the FAR thing, and Leslie might be able to help you
out a little bit on this. One of the reasons I think staff is
asking that it not be included is you are creating a non-conforming
parcel of an historic structure. Staff's believe is that by giving
him the exemption of not counting this new unit in the pool is a
big incentive. It is not limited to one a year, we are providing
ownership incentive, yes, there is the condominiumization
incentive, now if he can just divide this, but that is pending to
be taken out. So, we are providing an option that non-conforming
lots are created and that you can split an historic element on a
smaller parcel. But, to put a 500 sq. ft. bonus, which is your
maximum HPC bonus, on a non-conforming parcel may be too much.
Haybe we would want to say, somewhere in between, that maybe only
250 sq. ft. bonus would be appropriate because they are such small
lots. In the discussion we had this afternoon, Jake and Amy were
saying that usually the full bonuses are only on larger parcels,
maybe just half a bonus, or something to reflect the smaller lot is
a way we can look at it. I don't know, maybe it confuses you more.
But we are just trying to see a way to make it somehow work.
Vickery stated, just to clarify that one more step, is just that, I
personally feel that HPC is perfectly qualified to judge whether or
not a project deserves to get a bonus. That is their job, that's
what they are charged to do, that's their authority. I'm trying to
keep that authority with HPC. Like Amy said, in the past two
16
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION AUGUST 8, 1995
years, since Hay of 1993, there's only been two projects that we
know of that have gotten the bonuses. Both of those projects, one
of which is the one that I am doing, are 10,500 foot lots. The
purpose of showing you the FAR, as you see, as the lot size gets
larger towards the higher end of the scale, the FAR proportionately
is significantly lower. One fairly viable argument supports the
ability of these larger lots to accommodate up to 500 sq. ft. more.
And again, this is the jurisdiction of HPC and we are trying to
keep the integrity. This program wasn't intended to undermine the
HPC.
Lamont stated, just to add to what Hary was saying, this whole year
of "monster" home discussion, and FAR discussion, when we started
really looking at our allowable FARs the biggest problem that we
believed that we were having with FARs was the ratio on our small
lots.
Amidon stated, I agree with Leslie, this whole FAR discussion came
out of HPC. Jake's particular project, which is just one example
of this, results in 1,950 sq. ft. on a 5,200 sq. ft. lot, which is
not an exceeded amount of FAR, and you should also realize that in
his particular case that there are historic out-buildings that he
is required to keep which add up to 400 sq. ft., or something like
that. So, you have to realize that there are portions of buildings
that someone might not necessarily wish to keep or out-buildings
that are eating up FAR. That's part of the reason for the bonus in
the first place.
Hunt stated, well, I'll start with the basic philosophy that I do
have problems creating a non-conforming lot, just the basic problem
there, it doesn't mean I can't get over it. I don't like the idea
of creating a non-conforming lot, however, under the circumstance,
there's an historic structure, and it can be parceled in a 3,000
sq. ft. lot, that's fine, but now, what goes on the remainder of
the lot, which may not necessarily be historic at all once you've
separated it from the historic structure. Now, if there's an
outhouse or something like that, I guess that makes it historical
all of a sudden, but my concern is, that on this new 6,000 sq. ft.
developable lot, that really has minimal historic qualities to it,
you are basically going to put a new structure on it, and I have
severe problems of allowing that new structure, let's say,
variances that would be to an historic structure. I'm just not
interested in giving a new structure all those variances, I don't
see where it is appropriate at all. What happens to the lot next
to the new structure, if you vary the sideyard setback, you're
going to impact that one with a new structure and don't think
17
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION AUGUST 8, 1995
that's "cricket". I'm sorry, I don't want to rely on HPC to make
those decisions. I want to protect the next property owner, as
well, in this whole thing. So, I can go along with this lot split
idea, O.K., it makes some degree of sense, there's a good argument
for it, but I have grave problems about variances and bonuses
applied to the new structure; the lot that isn't necessarily
historic. If there is an historic outhouse on it, and it's in a
side yard setback, or something like that, fine, the variance can
apply there to the outhouse, but it shouldn't apply to the new
structure.
Amidon stated, that actually is not being proposed. We have had
the same feelings, I think, and there are no bonuses that are to be
alloted to the part of the property that does not have the historic
building, other than whatever might be allowed under cottage
infill, if they were to be doing an ADU or something like that.
We're not suggesting that, I agree with you, if it's a new empty
lot, they should build within the regulations.
Chaikovska stated, I think we have two conflicting things here,
we're looking at a code amendment that applies to everybody, and
yet, we're also constantly keeping in mind your project, which some
of us may like very much, or may not, there are personal
preferences, so, we are confusing two different things. To expand
on what Roger says, we have to look when we do a code amendment as
to what is fair, and what we think is appropriate for a code
amendment, period, without viewing your particular project. Then,
once we decide what is appropriate there, then, we can look at your
project, but to confuse the two makes it very difficult. Congress
doesn't allow us to create an amendment to fit one person's needs,
so I'd like to be able to separate the two in our minds, no matter
how much we may like your project.
Garton stated, I have a question, I need help from the staff; on
page 5, recommending approval, what you are suggesting is all in
bold, right?
Lackner stated, yes, those would be the additions to the code.
Garton asked, explain Item 2 to me.
Lackner stated, the parcel is a designated historic landmark. The
historic landmark is located on the lot which is less than 6,000
sq. ft. So, the new house, the new development, must be on a
conforming size in the R-6 Zone. The historic house is the only
one that can go on a non-conforming size parcel.
18
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION AUGUST 8, 1995
Garton stated, only the historical is on the non-conforming.
Vickery stated, that's a difference.
Garton asked, than what you propose?
Vickery stated, I don't propose that. Garton stated, so, you don't
agree with that.
Lackner stated, staff's looking at this as if we are going to be
creating a non-conforming size parcel. We want that attached to
the historic building to make it clear that that is our incentive.
Now, we are confusing things, for Jake's approval, he wants to
divide his lot evenly, creating two non-conforming sized parcels,
and he can currently do that under his condominiumization. In
terms of this code amendment, staff doesn't feel he should be going
that far.
Garton stated, I have to second Marta on this thing, too, I would
like to see this happen for Jake, but I agree, that I think if it
is a non-conforming lot it should be an historic parcel.
Vickery stated, may I address that on a general basis? I will try
to keep my project out of this as much as possible. The reason I
don't support that, and I don't support it generally, not just for
my project, but generally, for in order for this to work, for
example, if you had a 9,000 foot lot, and you had to make a 6,000
foot lot, that would only leave it 3,000 for the other site. Now,
there's lots of historic properties that are not going to fit on
the package like that because in order to do it, we'd have to have
a house that's no more than 20 feet wide, and then, both of your
side yards would only have to be 5 feet wide. I maintain that
that's not a optimum situation, that it might be better to be 45
and 45, in that case, or whatever works. But to be saddled with a
restriction of having to do a legal size 6,000 foot lot, when the
FAR, by definition, is already going to be restricted and lowered
to an allowable lot of record, it seems to me, just to saddle the
project with less flexibility, and then a potentially less workable
and attractive situation.
Garton stated, my problem is that if you allow the new dwelling to
go on the non-conforming lot, then, it shouldn't get the bonus,
like you shouldn't be able to get it all, it is one or the other.
Vickery stated, may I go back a step and just address that briefly?
19
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION AUGUST 8, 1995
First of all, the entire parcel, or the two parts of parcels, are
perpetually under the jurisdiction of HPC. So, the whole thing,
forever, gets reviewed by HPC. It's not like just an historical
part is reviewed by HPC, and the other thing just gets cut loose,
it is a perpetual review. I believe, that you want to maintain
the flexibility to be able to move things around, internal to the
properties, and what might work, you may or may not want to put the
bonus to the old house; or move it over to the new house. The
whole purpose of this is to take the development pressure off of
the historical resource, push it over there, let it happen off to
the side, so that you don't have the imposition of these large
masses from the rear, kind of backing over these little, old
houses. The purpose of this is to allow the little, old house to
be restored and maintained in its own integrity, without the
development pressure put on it, and put all that other pressure, or
whatever you want to call it, or development onto this new thing,
that's got its own entity, and is also reviewed by HPC. Let me
point out just briefly, the proposal here is that HPC needs to have
the flexibility in the variances and the coverage in order to make
this dual house thing happen, because of the coverage requirements
and setback requirments of large lots.
The proposed code amendment says, the new lots shall conform to the
underlying zone as if they were laws of record, which means that
the coverage and the setbacks of these historical lot split lots
then ought to meet the underlying setbacks and coverages as if they
were lots of record. Is that clear? By doing that you eliminate
the need for a vast majority of these variances.
(At this point the tape has to be changed and some of the
conversation between Hunt and Vickery was not taped.)
Vickery continued stating, let me give you an example. A
hypothetical 10,500 foot lot; the side yard minimum side yard
setbacks are 15 feet, not 5, not 10, but 15 feet, and the total of
the two side yard setbacks is 36-1/2 feet, so, what this would do
is allow the two houses to go on there and maybe have a 5 or 10
foot side yard setback that would require a variance from HPC, does
currently require a variance from HPC, but under this new code
amendment, would not, because when you make the small lots, all of
a sudden you are down 5 and 10 foot side yard variances, with a
total of 15, inside this really big, the rather large setback
requirement of the full size lot.
Lackner stated, staff is seeing this as it is drafted that now the
newly created lots, whether it's 3,000 or 4,500, meets those site
2O
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION AUGUST 8, 1995
coverage and setback requirements of that size parcel, and
hopefully eliminating the need for any site coverage and setback
variances. And then, that's what the neighbor would know when they
call the Planning Office, how close is this "guy" going to build to
me, you would look out and see your setbacks, so it would be the
same consistency as the rest of the townsite.
Vickery stated, we are actually in agreement on that part.
Hunt stated, I agree with that, but the "kicker" is the allowable
variances that HPC could eject there.
Vickery stated, in order to get a variance, any variance, or even
any bonus from HPC, you have to go along with an argument that's
made on the basis of what you are proposing is more compatible to
the historical resource than what would otherwise be allowable. It
has to meet that test, that's the test used to decide if the
variance should be awarded. If somebody has a better idea how to
do something, and they need an extra foot or something to make it
work, HPC has the ability, under that circumstance, to approve that
variance. That's the way the code is set up, that's the kind of
authority HPC currently has.
Hunt stated, for an historic resource, that's fine.
Garton stated, I understand what Jake and Amy are saying, these are
Siamese Twins forever, I mean, they really support each other and
for us to suddenly think of them of a whole new building on another
lot, we're allowing that to happen in order to make the historical
structure work better and design a wall around that, before we
divide out the other lot. You know these things are going to come
into play, and it would probably be better for the character of the
neighborhood. It puts a lot on HPC, but that's what HPC does now,
anyway.
Chaikovska stated, HPC has review control over the whole parcel,
correct? Your concern is that some of the FAR, all of the FAR,
could go on the new parcel, but not on the old historic house?
Garton stated, no, the bonus. Chaikovska stated, the bonus. You
can always do the middle of the road, do a portion if you want it
to go that way. Hunt stated, that there is so much square footage
for the parcel? Chaikovska stated, yes, and the 500 is allocated
between the two, that's another option.
21
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION AUGUST 8, 1995
Chaikovska stated, I just want a little more clarification on this
~2, again. The parcel is designated historic landmark. The
historic landmark is located on the lot which is less than 6,000
sq. ft. So, you're saying that the historic landmark will always
be on the smaller parcel? Amidon answered, yes. Chaikovska
stated, why do you care? Why would it have to be on the smaller
parcel, why couldn't you have the situation where it could be on
the larger parcel, what's the magic there?
Lackner stated, just to follow that if it is an historic building,
this is the incentive for a lot split, that we want to keep our new
development more in conforming size parcels, which is 6,000 sq. ft.
The aggregate, whatever it is, between 3,000 and 12,000, should be
the historic parcel. That's where you could still get your HPC
setback site coverage variances to fit your house onto that
aggregate, or left over floor area. We still do have some concern
about creating a non-conforming lot, as Roger said. That, at
first, when Jake came to us with this code amendment, how do we get
past that issue, it's a really tough one, and that's where we were
saying, that putting the historic element, or the incentive portion
of the property onto the non-conforming parcel, we're maintaining
the integrity of 6,000 sq. ft. lots we need developed. I think
Jake has some valid concerns that the historic piece might not
always fit. If it happens to be only a 9,000 sq. ft. parcel, that
house may be too wide for that 3,000; I don't know, maybe look at
other lot configuations. But that's where staff got over that non-
conforming size lot issue.
Amidon added, part of the other idea was too, was assuming we're
dealing with a small, historic structure we wanted them to end up
on small parcels because of the much less FAR.
Garton stated, Jake, I see that the big issue is ~5.
Vickery stated, yes, I think the big issue is ~5. I think where ~4
gets a lot of relief is because of the underlying zoning deal.
Garton asked, and you can live with that?
Vickery stated, yes, I think that's basically right. Can I say one
thing about the FAR? For example, let's take a hypothetical 9,000
sq. ft. lot. If you were to build the duplex FAR, you can see that
on your sheets there, for a 9,000 sq. ft. lot, it is 40-80. If you
were just to evenly divide it into two equal lots, and you evenly
divide the FAR, you would get two houses of 2,040 sq. ft. If you
22
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION AUGUST 8, 1995
built to 4,500 feet, which is the size of each of those lots, you
can see, the allowable single family FAR is 2,820. It means that
the FAR in this new kind of lot deal is going to be approximately
780 sq. ft. less than what would be allowed on a lot of record.
So, although we are creating non-conforming lots, we are also
creating FAR restricted lots, so that these non-conforming FAR
restricted lots are going to yield a structure for ball park
purposes, is it going to something like about 25% smaller than what
would be allowed on a lot of record.
Vickery added, I'm comparing it to a 4,500 sq. ft. lot. I'm simply
comparing it to a lot of record, basing it on a hypothesis of
developing a 9,000 foot lot just from an academic view.
Garton asked, does the Commission need more information on this?
Hooney stated, this is killing me. I don't think I can vote for
this; it's not because I want to vote for Jake's alteration of
this, it is because I have a problem with non-conforming creations
and I don't think this simplifies the code. I think we have plenty
of leeway and plenty of incentive for an architect to draw the
project that is compatible with the HPC's desires and insight and
with the City Code. This to me is just taking off on a tap that I
don't know when it's going to apply, where it's going to apply, and
who it is going to apply to. People need these things, they can
get their architect to do what they need on these lots with what we
have existing, in my opinion. For us to invent another way for
some imaginary project to be better than it could be, it's driving
me crazy. So, I would make a motion to deny it, even this code
amendment, because I don't think the code amendment is necessary
here, and I'm not making the motion to deny this because I think
that one or two of the conditions need to be treated, I think the
whole thing is just not really all there.
Lamont stated, don't forget, you are the Growth Management
Commission with the County P&Z.
Chaikovska stated, we need to go back to the beginning; I like the
idea that we were trying to simplify the process for somebody who
wanted to lot split versus condominiumizing because if it was
condominiumized, would you have control over the whole project
anyway?
Amidon stated, well, yes, because we do all our landmark
designations by legal description.
23
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION AUGUST 8, 1995
Chaikovska stated, so, whether we allow a lot split or a
condominiumization, it doesn't matter in terms of what type of
agency had control over the whole parcel?
Amidon stated, no.
Chaikovska stated, under a lot split we would say, under this, HPC
has control over the whole parcel, correct? Under
condominiumization, we still have control over the parcel. No
change, all it does is make it easier for somebody to sell their
project.
Hooney stated, it doesn't restrict or limit the way they can sell
it, it just basically means that there are two people that decide
what happens with the land underneath both structures. So, they
basically have to agree.
Chaikovska stated, if you come under the lot split you don't really
exempt them out of that pool for three years, is that correct?
Lackner stated, the way this code is drafted, yes.
Chaikovska stated, so, that's the benefit of it.
Garton stated, if they stay to the old process that our City
Attorney's now advise us, they'd have to track the subdivision
process.
Chaikovska stated, so, if you're condominiumized you would get your
500 sq. ft. FAR bonus from HPC, correct? The whole bussel. The
thing that becomes different is now when you are saying, you've
been put on the new or the old, am I correct, if you lot split?
Vickery stated, it's all done as part of a site specific
development plan that's looked at as a whole. The site specific
development plan is what apportions the FAR to individuals.
Lackner stated, the way the code amendment was drafted, the
applicant was asking that he could get an FAR bonus for both new
and created parcels. Staff's believe is you have the following
parcel with an historic designation, you are allowed one FAR
exemption. I think that's been fairly clear throughout the
project.
24
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION AUGUST 8, 1995
Vickery stated, that's agreeable, the intention really isn't to get
more FAR bonus or anything. The FAR bonus that is potentially
available to the full site, right now, would still be available to
that site.
Blaich stated, I'm trying to separate the two issues, too. I would
like to come back to this specific project. Jake, your objection
to the condominiumization of the property, is related to what,
because you can do everything under that? What is your objection?
Vickery stated, my objection to condominiumization is number one,
what happens is, the land is owned between the two people, and I
felt like it would be better to have it; I just want to own this
land myself. Secondly, in order to do the condominium, you have to
have condominium documents, you have to have a condominium plat,
you have to have a Tax I.D. number, and you have to do all this
"stuff" It's really superficial "stuff". The people that are out
there doing it, and it works out fine, but, you know, they just
legally "rig" it up so that it is ineffective. I prefer to have
the idea that this is my house, this is my lot.
Blaich stated, well, I speak as somebody who lives under those
circumstances, as I brought up before. With my property, it has
had little or no problems as long as both parties agree, or that's
where you get into trouble, because, at least under my agreement,
the original owners agreed, and I have to live with this, that
there will be no major alterations of design on houses, they would
approve such things, and that they have first priority of refusal
on purchase or sell of that house. Those are the only real
restrictions, and the second one doesn't mean anything because the
person can say, I'm going to sell that property and I want 10
million dollars for it, and if they don't want it, turn around and
sell it for 3 million. So, I can just say from experience, it
doesn't bother me that it is condominiumized. It might bother
somebody who wants to buy my property or the other property later.
It could be an affect, maybe, but I don't know. I wouldn't make
too much of it, that's all I'm saying.
There was discussion at random between Blaich and Vickery
regarding the possibility of condomininiumization. Blaich stated,
what we are trying to do here is, we have the issue of trying to do
something to help you get your project through, and then,
complicating our lives, because this thing might have a negative
affect the next time it comes before us, and everybody has the
right to say, I'm sorry, you did it before, we now have the right
too. I'm a little disturbed about this, because there is
25
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION AUGUST 8, 1995
differences of opinion between staff, I'd like to see staff in
agreement with this, not say, well, we really haven't come
together. I think it would be a lot easier for us to deal with it
if staff would say we have worked it out and we can agree with
this.
Hunt stated, I'm very close to Tim on this, and may second a
motion, so it doesn't die, but I haven't yet. About this FAR
bonus, O.K. you get a tangible benefit with the lot split and as
far as I'm concerned, the bonus is on the historic original parcel
and that bonus should be split up between the parcels because we no
longer have common ownership between the parcels. For example,
let's set up the hypothetical situation that HPC approves
application of all the bonus on the new structure, and what
happens, if later down the line someone wants to do something with
the historic structure and add a little to it, and the new
structure has eaten the bonus all the way up. That's not
particularly correct, so, what is condominiumized, if there were
any bonus left over on the new structure, with a
condominiumization, the historic structure could possibly apply for
that bonus. Well, when you stick the lot split in there, you don't
any longer have that transfer between the fee, so to speak. So,
consequently, I only feel it is fair to apply the bonus on the
basis of the ratio of the size of the lots to the properties. I'm
very close to Tim, I can't move for it the way it is, I'm really
close to Tim. I don't know if anyone else is, or not, but that
potential defect in the bonus in the way the variances are applied
to the new structure has me really worried.
Garton stated, for me, I too am disturbed, like Bob, by the
difference in staff on this, but I do see this as a real effort to
try to keep some small, historical resources, and keep them small.
If they are on a parcel that warrants this, it is one of our best
chances, I see, at keeping a small, historic house. I have a lot
of problem with the bonus thing, as well, and I think Harta's
suggestion enlarges on this too, to somehow have a ratio. But
then, on the other hand, I have a lot of faith in HPC, and I think
I would like to leave it up to them, I think HPC was really created
to look at these things. If there is an historic element with it,
I think HPC can review it a lot better than any code can actually
do. I am willing to go with Jake's original proposal.
MOTION
26
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION AUGUST 8, 1995
Hooney stated, I move that we deny this application for a code
amendment under the existing conditions. Hunt seconded. Roll call
vote was requested by Garton. Voting commenced, vote was: Hunt,
aye for the motion; Garton, no for the motion; Mooney, aye; Blaich,
no; Chaikovska, aye; Buettow, no. Vote was a split vote, motion
did not carry.
Discussion of Motion
Hooney stated, I am making the motion because of non-conforming
size of the lot and because basically I think that we can stretch
it to b., because that is kind of an overall umbrella; I think i.
has a broad enough umbrella; I think h., basically dealing with the
setbacks has changed the surrounding neighborhood and impacts the
houses that are immediately adjacent.
Hunt stated, I could see in this application that the bonuses and
variances would be in conflict with the compatibility of the
surrounding zone district land use, for one thing.
Garton asked, is there another motion from the Commission?
MOTION
Blaich stated, I would like to make a motion that we table it and
that staff go back and work it out in more detail after the
discussion we have had today. Hunt seconded. Roll call vote was
requested by Garton. Voting commenced; Hunt, aye; Garton, aye;
Mooney, aye; Blaich, aye; Chaikovska, aye; Buettow, aye. Vote was
unanimous in favor, motion carried.
Discussion of Motion
Lackner stated, I would like a lot clearer direction, I think, from
the discussion we had today, we were kind of all over the place.
There was a lot of discussion about non-conforming, some people
can't get passed that; bonuses, we really haven't come to a
direction of where we should be going with those. Some of the
comments were, everything's in the code now, why worry about it.
Garton stated, wasn't the Commission interested in exploring the
ratio portion of the bonus?
Hunt stated, my biggest concerns were the bonuses and the
variances, and how do we deal with those. You know how I feel on
27
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION AUGUST 8, 1995
those. For example, if that could be addressed, I could probably
switch my vote.
Vickery stated, what would you like to do, would you like it to be
a proportionate type split?
Hunt stated, well, in the case of bonuses, the original bonus for
the total property, parceled out between the new pieces of property
proportionately.
Vickery asked, would you have a problem with all of the bonus going
in the historical resource?
Hunt stated, yes, because it is now on a non-conforming lot, and
I'm looking at the bonus as belonging to the original parcel, so
that bonus should be split up between the two new parcels. That's
where I'm coming from there. The variances, I have no problems
with variances on an historic structure. I have all sorts of
problems with potential variances on the new structure from the
underlying zone district where the new parcel would be.
Amidon stated, I'm not trying to complicate the picture, but I'm
just wondering, one brief discussion we had today was, what if you
could have the whole bonus on the historic lot as long as it didn't
exceed a certain FAR, which is less than the maximum allowed, or
something like that? I mean, I just hate to be so restrictive in
laying out where the bonus can go when a case may come up that
makes perfect sense. But that is something staff can talk about,
maybe we can give a couple of options.
Hunt stated, but, maybe, you can come up with something.
Chaikovska stated, you wouldn't exactly, as Amy said, you wouldn't
want the whole thing on the historic structure, but then, if you
give it away to portions of the other structure, then, you don't
have any.
Hooney stated, I liked the discussion about whether or not we can
have separate ownership, but there are so many other things tapped
on here, as far as variances and bonuses, and I think that we have
covered a lot of that. We have given designers, architects, and
planners plenty of leeway and plenty of avenues to create very
unique historically, free market, combination compatiable units.
If you really want this ability to create a single ownership
instead of condominiumization of the land parcels, let's get at
28
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION AUGUST 8, 1995
that, and let's not try to tack on all this extra "stuff" that
really doesn't pertain to the ethics that we work on.
Vickery stated, if you go back to the code amendment that
proposed, initially, I was simply trying to do exactly what you can
do by the code now, except for one change, which is to go to
single-family lots instead of condominium ownerships. That's all
want to do. These other issues kind of came up.
Mooney stated, they make it so complicated, Jake, it really doesn't
make it easier for us to administrate what the intent is of what we
have in front of us, and to make a code amendment to allow us to
administrate it, to me, it's I don't know, it's goofy.
Vickery stated, what I proposed, this sheet here, the only change
would make is in the very last line of that page. Garton stated,
give us the page, Jake. Vickery stated, the attachment. At the
very bottom down there, it says, the aggregate allowable FAR for
both lots shall not exceed that otherwise allowed for the parent
parcel and apportioned by a site specific development plan. Each
lot shall have the ability to receive the same variances and
bonuses available to similarly sized lot of record. Vickery
stated, that needs to be changed to read something else, regarding
the bonus, the bonus allowed would be currently available to the
parent parcel shall be available to the two lots, but not that each
shall be available.
Garton stated, I think I'll call the motion, and then, perhaps,
there has been some direction given, and we'll see this one more
time, maybe within an hour.
Hunt stated, I'll go with that.
KING LOUISE APARTMENTS
GMQS EXEMPTION FOR A CHANGE IN USE
Leslie Lamont of staff presented stating, the proposal is to
convert an existing studio apartment in the office zone district to
a commercial/office use. Change in use in the code allows us to go
from residential category to commercial retail office category to
lodge. Change in use does not look at changes within the
commercial category, that's kind of side-lined, this has nothing to
29
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION AUGUST 8, 1995
do with that, but people get confused, and they think because
someone is going to make a restaurant into an office, they need to
do a change in use. But, this is an existing studio apartment that
is being converted to a commercial retail use, commercial/office
retail use. Retail is not allowed in the office zone district. As
part of their mitigation requirements, they are proposing to deed
restrict another existing studio unit on site to category one.
Now, the unit they are proposing to deed restrict does not meet our
current guidelines with the size of the units, however, when we did
the calculation of what and when mitigation was required, Cindy
Christensen and I figured that the requirement was something like
.07 employees. So, we felt that since this was an existing unit,
and we had the opportunity to put an existing free market unit on
our housing enventory, and that the mitigation itself was less than
one person, one employee, that we felt that it was appropriate and
acceptable to accept this unit into our housing enventory. It is
being proposed to be deed restricted to category one, which is our
lowest rental in sales restrictions.
Lamont stated, the applicant, in his application, appealed to
staff's interpretation of the code, thinking that since the
business will only operate Honday through Friday during business
hours, and that they will maintain the unit as a unit, they will
not be eliminating the kitchen or the bathroom, and it could be a
unit during the weekend or the evenings for their own personal use.
They, at first, did not think that this was change in use,
however, we wanted to keep this very clean, and because business
goes in there and if they needed an eventual change of just full
line business, and it was not used as a residential unit, then we
have achieved our employee migigation requirements.
Garton asked, does the applicant have anything to add?
Ted Guy, the applicant, stated, we agree with the conditions and
restrictions outlined in the memorandum. The deed restriction that
has been presented to us by the Housing Authority does allow us, if
we terminate the commercial use of this Unit #7, to apply to the
Housing Authority to remove the deed restriction on Unit ~8, since
it is no longer required. So, we have no problems with staff's
recommendations.
Hooney stated, can't you buy it back from the person?
Guy replied, it is only a rental.
3O
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION AUGUST 8, 1995
Lamont stated, my understanding is that deed restrictions
ultimately have to be lifted, but they have to be lifted by
Council.
Garton stated, so, we wouldn't see it, then?
Lamont stated, typically, the way we catch people going from
residential to commercial is through their business licenses or if
they are not pulling a building permit to eliminate a kitchen or do
significant renovation in the building; it's through a business
license which goes through our zoning office that we catch somebody
and say you have to come through our change in use process.
Garton asked, does it go through Stan or something?
Lamont answered, no, Bill calls the person on the license and says,
you need to go through a change in use, or with your business you
are not allowed in that zone district, or things like that. That's
why all our business licenses go through Bill Drueding and that is
where we would typically catch a change in use.
Hunt stated, sort of a quick question here, are there any other
units that are deed restricted in this complex?
Guy answered, no.
Hunt stated, my only problem, not a major problem, but I guess it
has to do with the business aspect; how do you figure out that the
hair salon is all the way back around this question mark (referring
to drawings)? It shows the existing walk, but that existing walk
is shaded by a lot of foliage in that little corner.
Guy answered, we are going to be improving the side yard on the
west. We have several handicapped clients who follow this
location, so they will come in either from the alley and be able to
come in from the street. We will, basically, plant lilac hedges
and turn that into a very nice yard. Now, if we had to put a sign
or something out there, we would have to go through whatever sign
code requirements you have and address them.
Hunt stated, I assume you have one or two parking spaces in the
alley for this unit and are the parking spaces numbered for the
actual apartments?
Guy stated, well, we suggested that what we would do is to double
parking on the side. A condition for the addition was that one of
31
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION AUGUST 8, 1995
those spaces be deleted, and I think that Chuck Roth felt that
there was enough on street parking in the area to cover the
occasional use. There are eight legitimate studio apartments at
this time, but there are only seven parking spaces.
Hunt stated, in other words, the seven across the back? Guy
stated, so, we are improving the parking situation and will park
our employee car in the parking right next to the door to ~8.
Hunt stated, but that is a double park space, and I don't recall
you have access.
Guy replied, yes, it is a double park space and we will park there
and our customers will be allowed to park on the alley. The person
who is the deed restricted occupant in Unit #8 does not own a car.
Hunt asked, would you plan on, in affect, re-designating these
spaces, assuming that, let's say, ~7 and ~8 are on the end here,
and however you want to work them, so that your customer would be
able to use the one closest to the alley?
Guy answered, right now, the lease on the those back units we do
not provide parking on site for.
Garton stated, would you like to make that a condition, Roger, just
because it is better planning?
MOTION
Hunt stated, I move to grant a GMQS Exemption for the change in use
of one 457 sq. ft. dwelling unit, number 7, from a primary
residential use to a mixed commercial/residential use with
Conditions 1-3 in Planning Office memorandum dated 8 August 1995,
with an addition of a condition to reorganize or renumber the
parking spaces in the alley to allow the minute commercial
apartment parking in what is now spaces 1 and 8. Blaich seconded.
Voting commenced, vote was unanimous in favor, motion carried.
Discussion of Motion
Hooney stated, I'm wondering, is the person who lives in the unit
that is going to be deed restricted, does he already qualify? Guy
answered, yes. Hooney stated, and do you think that we should say,
that with that qualification, that he won't own a car? Because we
are now eliminating his parking space and making it a kind of
temporary in-and-out parking space.
32
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 8, 1995
Guy answered, no, he does not have a parking space at this time,
so, we're not changing anything in regard to his situation because
of the lease.
Hunt stated, I understand. But you do have some spaces across the
back section? Guy answered, but the way people park, they only
have five on some days.
Commissioners Blaich and Buettow had to leave the meeting at this
point.
WORKSESSION
The worksession on the ADU Survey Review was taped and is stored in
the City Clerk's Office for any information needed.
AH/RO CONTINUED DISCUSSION:
TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS TO
NON-CONTIGUOUS PARCELS
Old Business, AH/RO Continued Discussion: Transfer of Development
Rights to Non-Congiguous Parcels was tabled to the August 22, 1995
meeting.
Additional Discussion
Lamont stated, what we need to do is look at commercial growth in a
different way, and I'm wondering if we need to bring our work
program to you and we can discuss with you your priorities for us.
Hooney stated, well, the whole thing is, I don't know how to get at
it. We have big companies coming in and dominating the resort
appetite of a small community, and who are not mitigating. This
community has to in some way be in partnership with these big
businesses that are national and international corporations, and I
think one of the things that we don't have is the ability to pay
full-time lobbists, like the Aspen Skiing Company, to expand the
airport. We don't have the ability to hire full-time
transportation experts that can balance out these "guys" from Vail
that are trying to turn our community into a mini-Vail, just to
33
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION AUGUST 8, 1995
expand the resort. To me, we start hedging on the idea that if the
resort gets so big that it makes us a second class community, then,
the resort starts to fail, and my idea about the attack they are
taking, is to expand the airport, to put more people on the street,
and once they get more people on the street, they are going to have
an appetite for more rooms, and more restaurants, and more shops.
Once they build more rooms, restaurants and shops, they are going
to want to expand the airport, create more people and put more
people on the street. If we don't start mitigating that kind of
outside growth, not just in what people do while building on their
lot, just control the appetite of these national and international
corporations for using our community for their resort development.
I think we lose everything, and all the work we have done
residentially, to put these people in these whatever kind of boxes,
on these lots and these spaces.
Garton asked, you don't think the Community Plan is that kind of
guide and has that kind of teeth?
Hooney stated, I don't think the Community Plan addresses the
commercial growth in any level of a percentage that is effective; I
definitely think that without Snowmass being involved in the
Community Plan, Sara, we're going to be shattered by the immediate
growth of these commercial entities. And the Ski Company, it is
outrageous, 2,700 employees. To my mind, I don't think they have
mitigated for one of those employees. I know they have some
employee housing that they bought, but they are bringing in outside
employees as fast as they can build their business and they are
building their business by bringing in outside employees, and all
of a sudden the community is becoming shadowed by them trying to
compete with other resorts. I don't know, I've got to get at it,
so that's my "speal"
Lamont stated, but do you think we could have a better discussion
in the context of our work program where we're really, so far, for
Council, we have a lot of commercial work that we want to do. It's
not reducing our quota, if you look at what our available quotas
have been and what we have gotten in commercial growth management,
it's been nothing. We want to get at it.
Hooney stated, just because we have allocated growth for commercial
development in the core, we have made that available, but we
haven't made it useable. What we've done is, sqeeze it on one end
and shoot out the other end. So, what we are doing is allowing
international companies to come in here and dominate us with their
kind of growth, because we are not allowing other local businesses
34
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION AUGUST 8, 1995
to take advantage of growing in the commercial core. That's not
really a priority for me, to say that there's too much available
FAR for commercial growth. To me, it is the philosophical intent
of allowing the community to be used for huge corporations to
profit when they are not mitigating the impacts on the community.
Garton stated, there's no way that they could provide the infra-
structure and pay for it.
Hooney stated, maybe, that's it. I've always been curious to find
out how we can shut the water off. We're at the head of all the
water, the tap fees, and the growth, and everything, and maybe,
unless there's mitigation for commercial growth of these companies,
you know, you just start pulling something in or taking control of
a company. When I started the Ski Company there were 45 ski
instructors on Aspen Hountain and there were about 90 at
Buttermilk, and maybe, 90 at Snowmass. Now there is 900. 900
instructors. There's 2,700 Ski Company employees. Now, we don't
have the ability to say if you expand the FAR of your building, you
have to pay. But, here, they have the whole outdoors and they're
putting people off because they want people coming through; it's
out of balance. It is commercial growth that has me very
concerned.
Garton asked, in our next packet for the 22nd, be sure to put the
31st, that worksession, on our future meetings. With P&Z, where we
are to meet with them. We are supposed to meet with the City
Council to discuss the Aspen Area Community Plan, and I have August
31st, a Thursday, at 5:00 p.m.
Lamont stated, I will double check and I will make sure it is on
your agendas so you all will know; the time, everything, because
they are starting to meet at 4:30 p.m. for the worksessions.
Hooney stated, I would like to take it into as strong a discussion
session as possible. I don't mean to climb the ladder with this
kind of information, I like to start at the top and start throwing
people energy at it. You know, this sensationalism that the Ski
Company and other community aspects are using to create a
sentimental idea that we're not big enough, is "stuff" like the ski
season was 5% off in attendance. Well, that's not talking about
the profit the Ski Company made; they have the highest lift ticket
price, they're running some of the most expensive hotels, blah,
blah, blah, and they are still generating a tremendous return with
the people we have coming here. To say that they need more people
in order to make their companies viable is some kind of sensational
35
PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION AUGUST 8, 1995
kind of headline. That gets everybody worried that we're not
strong enough.
Heeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Sharon M. Carrillo, Deputy City Clerk
36