Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19950822 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 22, 1995 JOINT WORKSESSION WITH THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Present for the Planning & Zoning Commission were: Sara Garton, and Jasmine Tygre. Absent were: Tim Mooney, Roger Hunt, Robert Blaich, Marta Chaikovska, and Steven Buettow. Present for the Historic Preservation Commission were: Jake Vickery, Roger Moyer, Martha Madsen, Susan Dodington, and Melanie Roschko. Absent were: Donnelley Erdman, Leslie Holst, Linda Smisek, Sven Alstrom, and Jeffrey McMenimen. Sara Garton of the Planning & Zoning Commission chaired the meeting and called the meeting to order at 5:15 P.H. 500 W. BLEEKER LANDMARK DESIGNATION CONCEPTUAL REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW Amy Amidon of Community Development represented for staff and stated, we are bringing you together because we have a project, a proposed re-development of a historic landmark property in the west end on West Bleeker. Given the several different incentives in the code that the applicant wants to take advantage of, we thought we should bring you all together and try to avoid certain "ping- ponging" between committees or a lot of confusion. Amidon stated, so, this is Casey Clark, and she owns the property with her husband, Ben Hall. (Also present was Tom Yokum, surveyor and architect of the project.) Basically, what they are proposing; the existing house is 2,400 sq. ft. and they would like to request a Bed & Breakfast as an allowed use, it is a conditional use. They would like to request approval for Bed & Breakfast, they would like to add a second unit, which will be condominiumized, and an ADU. Within all that development there are several variances and things that are being requested; a bonus for the ADU, potential FAR bonus from HPC, and setback variances. So, with that, I think we'll pass around pictures of it. They have developed a plan, they have developed sort of a conceptual idea of the elevation, but you shouldn't take these too much as what will necessarily be their proposal. Amidon presented a letter from the applicants, Casey PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION AUGUST 22, 1995 Clark Hall and Ben Hall, to both Commissions stating her requests. (Letter is attached in record). Leslie Lamont of Community Development stated, one of the things we would like to discuss with you tonight is the concept of using the historic program and all the incentives that are with the historic program, and also using the accessory dwelling unit program and the incentives that come along when one proposes an accessory dwelling unit. On top of that, to do a Bed & Breakfast in an historic landmark that is a Conditional Use Review by the Planning & Zoning Commission. So, we would like to get a discussion going between the two groups to make sure that the concept of this project is something that you approve of; what problems do you have with it, what issues you have, and what new information you would need. Typically, what happens is when someone has an historic landmark, they go through conceptual review with HPC and then it comes to P&Z and there are issues that P&Z has about the use of the proposal that often get flushed out in site design issues. An applicant feels like, I've worked all this time with HPC and then I come to P&Z. That's why we thought we would try and do a joint worksession at this point and time, so you all can discuss your issues and throw them out on the table at the same time, and you all can benefit from each of your perspectives on a project like this. Garton stated, my initial response, as being Chairman of the Planning & Zoning, is that this is a very sensitive zoning issue. I am very concerned about something like this going into a residential area and the impacts on the neighborhood. Casey Clark asked, what aspect of it? Garton replied, the number of cars and the garage. The number of people that would be housed in a Bed & Breakfast. Lamont stated, so, you think from a land use perspective the Bed & Breakfast aspect of the project? Garton replied, I'm concerned about it, but I would probably need to see if it can be argued that it is not much of an impact on a residential neighborhood, and see some statistics about that. This is a very tight neighborhood on West Bleeker. Casey Clark stated, for the last ten or fifteen years before Ben's mother died, she actually had the house functioning as a room and board situation, and I understand the serious issue of car impact, 2 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION AUGUST 22, 1995 but the people impact we have actually been dealing with for fifteen years in that neighborhood. We believe this house has the option of bringing us three suites, so, it's not five bedrooms, it would be three suites. We have asked how many cars that we need, and I don't think we would be having more than three groups in there at this time. Even if we apply for the Bed & Breakfast, I will tell you that we don't have to run it, we're just trying to come up with options because we haven't been successful to date in really renting it like we think that we should. We think the Bed & Breakfast would be really nice in keeping with the historical aspects and I certainly understand the impact, and I don't know if I have answered your questions. We could rent each room out as a bedroom, right now, we could do that, but I think you need to have a supervised home in an area like this historical residential neighborhood and I think we will be able to do that. Garton stated, actually, in our zoning code, we have something about short term in a residential neighborhood, we just passed that, but you couldn't advertise and rent single rooms on a short term basis; that's in our code now. Roschko stated, I'm concerned that maybe this would set a precedent, that other houses in the west end would then want to also become Bed & Breakfasts. Lamont stated, Bed & Breakfast is a conditional use only for historic landmarks. Roschko stated, I mean, other historic houses might get the same idea. Lamont stated, I believe one of the reasons it is in our code is another incentive for people who have historic landmarks to refurbish and maintain their structure and also help them try and find another use for that home other than purely a residential structure. Yokum stated, it is a physically taxing thing to do, on an historic landmark it does limit your ability to make any money on it. A Bed & Breakfast you have enough income from the house itself that the maintenance of the house could be done. It was stated, your's would maybe be small, but what if somebody down the street had a bigger historic house? 3 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION AUGUST 22, 1995 Yokum replied, I guess that is the reason you come to these meetings so you can get a conditional use and you would have to get one on an individual basis. If someone had a monstrous house and was going to rent it out with little studios, and maybe fifty of them in there, I can see where you might want to turn that down. It was stated, this isn't just a Bed & Breakfast, is it? There's also a free market unit, an ADU unit, and how many rooms for Bed & Breakfast, and what's condominiumized out of all this? Lamont stated, let me just walk through this, what I'm going to tell you is what is allowed in the code, right now. This property is historically landmarked. Our code allows for historically landmarked properties to have a second free market unit on the property; it is a 6,000 sq. ft. lot. So, our code allows a second unit on the property. The code also requires that when somebody creates a duplex or they tear down and rebuild a single-family home, or whatever, the code requires somebody to mitigate their employee housing needs, and they have one of three ways that they can do that. They can pay cash-in-lieu, they can be a local working resident and not have to mitigate employee housing, or they can provide an accessory dwelling unit. Then, because the property is historically landmarked, the property owner has the option to pursue, to ask, for a review by the Planning & Zoning Commission for a Bed & Breakfast. It was asked, in the new code or new ordinance, wasn't there something about the number of garages? Lamont asked, you mean, Ordinance 30, our Residential Design Standards? It was answered, yes. Lamont stated, our Residential Design Standards did a lot of things. One thing that it did, it took away the 500 sq. ft. bonus for garages, you only get 250 sq. ft. now; it also gives quite a few recommendations on how to deal with a garage. If you have an alley, your garage has to be off of the alley in order for you to obtain a 250 sq. ft. bonus. It cannot be off of the street, it has to be off of the alley. The other thing that we did, the code used to require one parking space per free market bedroom, and we've changed that and we require two parking spaces per dwelling unit. In addition, with an accessory dwelling unit, you are not required to have a parking space for the accessory dwelling unit, unless, during the review it is determined that a parking space is necessary because of the neighborhood or 4 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION AUGUST 22, 1995 all the other uses on the site. That's what we have done with parking. Lamont added, now, because Casey has an historic landmark and she is attempting to take advantage of the incentive program that we have in the historic landmarks, one of those was to pursue a Bed & Breakfast, and also, because she is doing an accessory dwelling unit, there's a variety of bonuses and variations that she can request. From HPC she can request side yard setback variances, rear yard setback variances, a height variance for the accessory dwelling unit on the alley, she can also request a floor area bonus up to 500 sq. ft. that all come along with having an historic landmark. For the accessory dwelling unit, in our code, it says that if you have an accessory dwelling unit that is 100% above grade, which is what is proposed, then, you also get a floor area bonus of 250 sq. ft. or half of the size of the unit, whichever is less. So, there's quite a few pots here that we are going to be putting together, and we wanted to run this by you "guys" altogether. It was asked, Amy, if you total all the figures in the second paragraph, is she as big as she can go? Amidon replied, in fact, she's over that right now, with this proposal, and Casey knows that, and knows that there's going to need to be some trimming. Casey Clark stated, we're over about 400 sq. ft. Amidon stated, and that's assuming that they would get the ADU bonus and the full 500 sq. ft. from HPC. Moyer asked, Amy, she is currently over 400 sq. ft., correct? Amidon answered, yes. Moyer asked, if she has an ADU bonus, is she still over 400 sq. ft.? Amidon replied, yes, they are over by 450 sq. ft., or something like that, assuming even that they already got a bonus of 250 for an ADU and 500 from HPC. So, in theory, they are 1,100 sq. ft. over what's allowed? Moyer stated, thank you. Yokum stated, as you can see, there's five parking spots there. Moyer stated, I would like to make a comment. From an HPC member and perspectives, when someone said let's make an historic house into a Bed & Breakfast, I thought that was a pretty interesting concept. Hy first concern was, well, there's going to be two issues here; there are going to be neighbors and the neighbors are going to be concerned about people and cars. So, 5 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION AUGUST 22, 1995 let's address first, the people. The house has five bedrooms and the house can conceivably have ten people living in it, with five bedrooms, two to a bedroom. That means that there could be twenty cars with ten people living in the house. If there are three suites, and they are rented out, that would normally be two people per suite, so that's six people. Then, you have, along with the three suites, is there a person that lives there all the time? That's the ADU. With the ADU you would possibly have two more people, so, you would have eight people there, possibly, at any given time. That would be sixteen cars, conceivably. Hoyer continued saying, now, I looked at this litte presentation here, and I thought, they're asking for all these garages. Just before I came here, I read this little memorandum, and just before I came here, I sat downstairs and listened to all the chatter and discussion about the entrance to Aspen and the connection between the airport and Buttermilk to Aspen. I thought, and I've said this for years, why can't they have a Bed & Breakfast; get rid of the garages, maybe, none or one. Any guest who stays here, if they drive into town, a simple requirement; if you want to check in here, you check in, your car is taken to the garage outside of town. If you want to get around town, you take the bus, or you take the one car that is assigned to the house as part of the agreement and that car takes you where you want to go. That way, we get rid of the cars, right? I see no reason why a person should come into Aspen and have to rent a car to drive around town. It should be forbidden, plain and simple, you can't do it, unless you want to drive to Vail, or go jeeping, and the concierge gets you the car and you take the thing and go to where it is you want to go, and then you don't have a rental car sitting in the parking space or whatever. I thought I would just throw it out to you; get rid of all these silly garages, forget about the parking and let's deal with, from our perspective, the historic structure and whatever is added on in mass and scale and being compatible. Let's add to the the mass and vitality of Aspen, providing it can work with the neighborhood, there really isn't any reason it couldn't. I love to stay at Bed & Breakfasts, personally, and they work, they're great. So, I think it is, possibly, an exciting possibility. I don't think it is exciting when you are adding all these garages and bringing in more cars. I think there are ways, hopefully, that we can start dealing with these car issues, and that's something, I think HPC and P&Z really need to address this automobile fiasco, because it is crazy. Let's maybe formulate something so we can get rid of the car; put some restrictions. Want another lodge, great; no cars, sorry. PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION AUGUST 22, 1995 Garton stated, as Casey just pointed out, they may not rent it out. They are going to go ahead and go through this, but they may not operate this as a Bed & Breakfast. Casey Hall stated, I'm saying, in reviewing with HPC and P&Z in terms of mandatory requirements, it is my understanding that you don't have to mandatorily rent it as a Bed & Breakfast. Lamont stated, well, if you didn't have a Bed & Breakfast, and you had two free market units, and you have an accessory dwelling unit on the property, the parking requirement would be two spaces per dwelling unit and then, the discussion would be around, would you require a parking space for the ADU? So, I hear what you are saying, Roger, but if you take away the commercial aspect of the property, the five parking spaces, or just four parking spaces, would meet the requirements of the code. Hoyer stated, let's say, given historic properties, particularly landmarks, that you throw away adding all these garages and "stuff", because it really detracts from the historic character of the building. A garage is not necessary as part of the historic character of that building, so, let's get rid of the garage, get rid of the cars. And if people want to do something with an historic landmark building, part of the arrangement that we can start demanding is to stop dealing with the automobile. Yokum stated, I agree with you, I don't think anybody wants more cars in Aspen, but at the same time, the economic loss would be taken by historic landowners, so it's now you want to sell it and the "guy" says, I would like to buy that but I've got this "Olds" Hoyer stated, well, you have the garage. Yokum stated, you've got this one garage for this "guy" who buys this million dollar property? Conceptually, I think you are right. Moyer stated, the real issue is, in order to provide the garages, you have to add on, therefore, you're taking away the integrity of the historic property by having to do that. Vickery stated, I would like some clarifications. I'm trying to figure out what he has got here. Right now, you have a single- family house with five bedrooms, and are you doing anything with that house, or is that going to just remain a house. Ben Hall replied, that's going to be the Bed & Breakfast. Vickery stated, so, three of those five bedrooms will be suites. So, the historical structure becomes the Bed & Breakfast. O.K., then, you PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION AUGUST 22, 1995 want to add another free market unit that's presumably for you "guys" to live in? How big would that free market unit be, then? How many bedrooms would it have? Clark answered, one or two, depending on our allowable FAR. Vickery stated, you are also proposing, because you need to do this to get an ADU, and where would that be, above grade or below grade (referring to site plan)? Clark replied, above grade, above the garage. Vickery asked, what size of ADU would that be? Hall replied, it is a studio and presented the floor plan. Clark stated, 482. Vickery asked, now, above all that, you want to have a three-car garage? Yokum replied, below the ADU, and attached to the Bed & Breakfast, would be a three-car garage. Vickery asked, are you re- locating the historical house? Yokum answered, no, the historical house doesn't get touched. Vickery stated, so, you have a total of a five-car garage, and on top of that, you want to condominiumize. Yokum replied, that just splits off the free market unit from the historical piece, it just makes that a free market condominium, basically. Vickery asked, what is the total FAR of the historical house? Clark answered, 2,408. Vickery asked, does that count the basement? Clark answered, that does not count the basement. Vickery stated, just FAR. What is the FAR of the new free market unit? Yokum stated, we can probably downsize it to around 1,000 or 900. It was stated, I think that is what Jake is working on. Lamont stated, we really want Casey to sit down with Bill Drueding and go over how they are figuring their existing FAR on the property; especially with Ordinance 30, porches do not count any longer and things like that, so she needs to sit down and try and figure out exactly what her existing FAR is. Garton asked, Amy, I'm not quite sure why we are seeing this so early. First of all, this is wrong, all these totals are. I mean, what were you hoping to get from Planning & Zoning? Amidon answered, we are still trying to get a feel from you about how, given her basic site plan, you feel about the number of variances being requested, how you feel about the mixture of uses with the Bed & Breakfast combined with another dwelling unit? PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION AUGUST 22, 1995 Garton answered, that's way too big a mass, too much for that neighborhood, there are too many concessions to make this work. Clark asked, when you say too many, can you tell me which ones? You can build a free market unit, and I don't have to build an ADU. Garton responded, it's big, it's too big, Casey. In this case, I don't think an ADU really works in this parcel, it makes it too big. Lamont stated, one thing that we talked about is, if a Bed & Breakfast were proposed and approved, that the ADU would become the employee dwelling unit. Casey and I have talked about actual fully deed restricting the unit. Tygre stated, speaking from Planning & Zoning Commission's point of view, I'm a little bit concerned about the Bed & Breakfast usage on the property. I think one of the things that really bothers me is not so much the application itself of a Bed & Breakfast, but the fact that, now it is a Bed & Breakfast, and now it isn't. I think Roger's point about the garages is very well taken. If in fact, this is going to be run as a Bed & Breakfast, then, I would think that you could have the kind of usage where the garages would not be necessary and I think that would create a whole different type of usage on the property. On the other hand, you cannot compel somebody to run a Bed & Breakfast if it is not making any money, and you have to look down the way at what happens, if, in fact, it doesn't work as a Bed & Breakfast, which means a different kind of configuration, a different kind client usage, a different kind of occupancy, and that makes me very uncomfortable on this parcel. I agree with Sara, I think the bulk is unacceptable. I think that if you came in for building your second unit, I would probably go along with Sara and say this is not appropriate for an ADU. Even if you deed restrict it though, the occupancy by an employee is not mandatory, is it? Lamont stated, if we fully deed restrict it, it would be. As an employee unit that would track with the Bed & Breakfast. Tygre stated, suppose it doesn't work as a Bed & Breakfast? Ail these things that might be O.K. with a Bed & Breakfast, if the Bed & Breakfast works in that particular neighborhood, and I think you would have a lot of neighbors that would make comments one way or the other, and it might very well turn out to be a terrific Bed & Breakfast; on the other hand, you build a Bed & Breakfast and it doesn't work as a Bed & Breakfast, then you've got an approval for something which really doesn't exist anymore and which is not PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION AUGUST 22, 1995 appropriate for a residential use. I'm having a real hard time coming to grips with it; maybe, I'm just not comprehending this. Moyer stated, if it were built for a Bed & Breakfast and that's how it was approved, and then, it ran for a Bed & Breakfast for ten years, and then, somebody decided they wanted to sell it, then, they would have to re-apply to do anything more. Tygre stated, no, it could be just a conditional use to just go back to residential. Hoyer stated, if they didn't build out as big as they want to build out, in otherwords, if they didn't build out as many garages or the ADU, or the free market, or whatever; if they build out small they would have to come back to build out more if they reverted from a Bed & Breakfast to something else, right? Tygre stated, if they reverted from a Bed & Breakfast to a residential use and wanted to add on; if they are going to exceed their FAR. Clark stated, I don't understand. Hoyer stated, what I think is happening is, they are coming before us with two applications; one for a Bed & Breakfast, and one, what if? In other words, they want to "max" the thing out so if it doesn't work as a Bed & Breakfast they can sell it off and it becomes a house with three garages, a separate condominium, and an ADU, right? So, what if they came to us only for a Bed & Breakfast and it was scaled back and it didn't have that number of garages; it had the one free market unit and/or ADU, but the addition, was in fact, smaller? So, they have to decide what they want to do. Garton stated, legally, you can't do that either. The only way I could be happy in granting a Bed & Breakfast without garages, is to say, forever it is going to be a Bed & Breakfast and guests cannot have cars. Clark stated, I want you to understand that in the proposal it's not that I want three garages for the main house, it seems to be the need to be granted for the usage, so, if you are saying that you can arbitrarily lose a garage and have the historical home, two garages, which I think everyone would agree is normal, and we are allowed to build out a free market unit, and I don't know if the ADU is necessary or not, I don't know about that, but I understand that you like ADUs, so, if you don't like an ADU, you just want a house with two garages and a free market, maybe we could re-focus our energies. 10 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION AUGUST 22, 1995 Garton stated, you would have a big mitigation to pay though, for the employees. Lamont stated, not necessarily, if, as part of the process of building the new addition; there's an old garage right now that counts in the floor area that would be torn down. I mean, we would look at that. If Casey was to live there, live in the new free market unit, working Bed & Breakfast, there would be no mitigation until such time as Casey sold the home to someone who is now a working resident of Pitkin County. You are right, there could be. We had this discussion a couple of years ago when someone was converting a garage into their second free market unit, on their historically landmarked property, and then they wanted to provide an accessory dwelling unit and there was no ability for any parking lot. Staff was very split over this, and we felt that we would rather give up the accessory dwelling unit because the code allows them, as a right, to have a second free market unit on the historically landmarked property and that it was too much on the property. Tygre stated, I think it is unfair, too, to the applicants, that there are only two people here from the Planning & Zoning Commission, and Sara and I tend to agree on a lot of things, and I think there are other members of the Planning & Zoning Commission who have diametrically oppposed viewpoints, and they are not going to benefit, such as it may be, from these opposing viewpoints. I want you to understand that this is just two people. Lamont stated, I think this is very good, because HPC has the ability to grant a variety of variances on this project and they have the ability to grant floor area bonus. HPC is hearing from some P&Z members that the bulk and mass is too big, but P&Z is willing to eliminate the ADU in order to reduce the bulk and mass. So, when you "guys" give a conceptual review, you've heard that, because if the bulk and mass still feels too big if Casey comes over to P&Z for the conditional use review for the Bed & Breakfast, there's things in there that don't work. Yokum asked, the bulk of the house, is that the issue? Garton stated, for myself, Tom, I would like to see the ADU go away and that way some of the parking can go away. Yokum asked, it's not the use as a Bed & Breakfast that you find objectionable? 11 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION AUGUST 22, 1995 Garton replied, I didn't realize that's a conditional use for a historic parcel, so, I better shut my mouth on that one. The conditional use has to come through us and that is a whole public hearing and neighbors might have a lot more to say than I would have to say about that. Clark stated, I will share with you that is a huge issue to the neighbors, and I will share with you that, basically, Sue ran a Bed & Breakfast for many, many years, so, the neighbors have been familar with it. I only know one set of neighbors that have a strong feeling against it, and that's the Stromberg's, and they just put their house up for sale, and I don't know if it because they think I'm applying for a Bed & Breakfast or what. Clark continued stating, in that neighborhood you have the Historical Museum, and you have the Music Chamber, and you have the Yellow Brick and the Waldorf School, and you have Westec, and so, actually, you have already allowed different things. Commissioner Roschko had to leave the meeting at this point. Hadsen stated, I sympathize with this property, and I agree that the impacts of a Bed & Breakfast, a small Bed & Breakfast like this, and I stayed at a great one in a residential area just a couple of weeks ago, and I have to say, there was no place to put my car and I got a parking ticket, but I did go to City Hall and they were sympathetic. I really feel that a small Bed & Breakfast in this neighborhood is not that inappropriate, and I think when you have properties like this, there's some give and take to be done. I mean, we live in a residential resort. Yokum stated, I think making houses like this profitable maintains them, basically. Hadsen stated, conceptually, I'm not opposed to it. Clark stated, I really appreciate all your time during this worksession, and I will tell you that I will pay you for all your advise. I may not agree with it, but any ideas you have to make this property work, because it is not working. So, anything you "guys" have. Vickery stated, I agree, basically, with Sara, that this is just too much "stuff", and I'm very sympathetic regarding landmarks and the problems that they have, and I would try to work anyway possible to make this a successful situation for you, but I do 12 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION AUGUST 22, 1995 think, all and all, just the cumulative affects of all the things that you are requesting here, as a total package, are going to be too much. Clark stated, well, pick the ones you like and let us know what you would approve. Vickery stated, I can sort of tell you a couple of things. First of all, I don't think I'd support more than three cars on the site. Clark asked, do you mean that, three garages? Vickery replied, well, I'd rather see one two-car garage and one on-site parking space, but I don't want to say that, I'm just saying, for a 6,000 foot lot, three cars is about the most cars I would like to see on a lot. HPC does have the right to waive other parking spaces, and I don't think you need to park five cars on there; I think if you can get three on there that's good enough for me. Vickery continued stating, I want to reiterate this thing about these FAR bonuses; that usually you have a hard, uphill battle to come in and justify that what you are doing is more compatible to the historical use than what you would otherwise be doing. You've got to become aware of that test, because that is the test that HPC uses in making decisions about the bonuses and variances. We just did a study for another, which I happened to be involved in, but the full bonus has only been allowed a couple of times, and on larger lots, like 10,000, 9,000, you know, bigger lots. So, it's tough to do that. I suggest that you look at utilizing the below grade space as much as possible. Clark stated, we can put the condominium below grade and still have mass, and it is below grade, and we reduce our FAR. So, a free market condominium, if we build it in the basement, we could do it. Vickery stated, you could do it, you could put the ADU in the basement. At times it is preferable to have an ADU above grade, but sometimes not. Clark asked, so, if this plan was below grade, would it be more palatable to you if the condo was set down, the free market condo? Vickery responded, yes, I think so. Clark stated, now, I'm not talking about basement level. Vickery replied, again, it gets into architectural design and it is really impossible to deal with until we see it. Yokum stated, that drawing is actually the actual house and a drawing of the free market attached to it. Clark stated, we have 13 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION AUGUST 22, 1995 the plans here, and I don't think it is cost effective to keep drawing plans unless you give us some feedback. Vickery stated, I am trying to discourage you from going after the 500 foot bonus because I think you are going to have a very hard time. Clark asked, what are the advantages of having an historical landmark if you can't use any of the incentives? Vickery responded, well, I support your Bed & Breakfast application, I mean, I think that's the whole point. It is to allow landmarks a wider variety of uses to help form the economically viable. I support the Bed & Breakfast without question, basically. Yokum asked, do you feel a conflict, if you say, O.K., I'm supporting the Bed & Breakfast, but at the same time, I don't want too much parking on this? That to me is like a conflict; I assume most people that would come here would drive right up. Vickery stated, you are just going to have to park on the street and the street will absorb it. Yokum asked, is that a huge issue in town? Vickery replied, well, everybody's got different opinions on it. Garton stated, Sardy House, and all of them, encourage in their literature, not to bring their cars. Yokum stated, it would be nice if you could get your clients and clientele not to bring cars, I think that's the idea. Madsen stated, I have apartments, and I hate to tell you, but I have single people with two cars; people have cars, they have to park on the street. Dodington stated, they are not people who visit, they come on the airplane and they can take a taxi there and they can use the bus. Clark asked, what is the feedback on the free market condo, because I know the Bed & Breakfast, I got some feedback there, but I'm not clear on the free market condominium? If we remove the ADU and remove the third garage? Vickery stated, I'm not sure how you remove the ADU exactly, unless you are going to do cash-in-lieu. Garton stated, later they do cash-in-lieu. Lamont stated, if a working resident lives in the second free market unit, they can defer the mitigation. Clark asked, can HPC 14 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION AUGUST 22, 1995 waive cash mitigation? Lamont answered, no. We would figure out what is the new net leasable compared to the new floor area that's added to the property versus the floor area that's eliminated. There is a garage and a shed in the back, right now, that we are counting that would be eliminated as part of this proposal. So, we would figure out what is the new net floor area and figure out employee mitigation. Vickery stated, according to the numbers as I tried to understand them here, the existing house is 2480, which means you've got left over 800 and something square feet, and you are only proposing a 1,200 foot second unit. Clark stated, I think that's all that we have because we were told we had to have an ADU, so, if we are just looking at the square footage of the FAR, and we have a free market condominium, and that's where we are focusing our energy. I think we need to find out how much square footage is managable within the guidelines and approvals. Vickery stated, all I'm trying to say is, that right now, as I understand it, you have something like 800 square feet available to you, and if you only want to do a 1,200 foot free market condominium, then, that seems it is pretty close to almost fitting in there. You eliminate a couple of cars and garages. The reason the whole garage thing got reduced, it used to be one per bedroom; it is just too much mass, or housing mass, or bulk on the site. Yokum stated, you are starting out here with 46% coverage of the entire 6,000 feet, and the increase we are asking for is 11% increased to 57%, so I don't think it is massive. Vickery stated, I'm not sure you can get there from there, though. Your required coverage is 45%, right, your maximum allowable coverage. It is something like that. Lamont stated, our intention was not to get into debating the numbers and design the project for the applicant, our intention was to discuss the concepts and what could you live with and what could you not live with. Hoyer stated, in regards to that, I would like to ask for kind of a straw poll feeling. The first question would be, conceptually, as a Bed & Breakfast, are you for it or against it? Conceptually, would you encourage the applicant to use underground space? Conceptually, would you encourage the applicant to ask for maximum 15 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION AUGUST 22, 1995 three parking spaces, whether enclosed or not? And conceptually, would you want to have an ADU, or let that slide for now? I think it would help the applicant go on with the process. Dodington asked, could I clarify one thing; Casey, in this picture, is this whole thing the free market? Clark replied, no, don't even look at the design. The basement is the only area on the property that it could be placed. Dodington stated, but all of that space would be the free market? Clark replied, no. Yokum and Clark explained the picture further to Dodington. Garton polled the Commissions with the above four conceptual questions mentioned by Hoyer and polling was by a show of hands. Garton asked, how many like the idea of a Bed & Breakfast on this parcel? How many would like to see them utilized below grade space more? How many would like to see maximum three spaces of parking? How many would like to see the ADU not a part of this parcel? There was no concensus and split vote among the Commission members with each question. Lamont stated, I think that things like the parking, and the various variances, and even the Bed & Breakfast comes down to review of a very specific application. The kinds of things you would review for a Bed & Breakfast are hours of operation, number of rooms available, and how many employees you think it would take to service it, and things like that. And those are all sorts of things that conditions of approval can be placed on for a very particular use. Hoyer stated, what I get is that they are coming in for two things. They are going to have to decide on one or the other; either they are going to ask for a Bed & Breakfast, period, or they are going to "max" out whatever they can "max" out to sell for a future investment. Then, that future investment, as any developer has the right to do, hey, you can have this as a Bed & Breakfast or this is your posh residence with your extra space and all that "stuff" It seems to me that you have to decide which is going to work best. I think it would be easier to ask for a Bed & Breakfast, period, and scale it down, rather than to be looking for selling it for something else and getting something else to happen. Clark stated, a future developer could look at the piece of property, legally, within the guidelines, as a Bed & Breakfast, with a free market unit. Why would that be palatable in the future 16 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION AUGUST 22, 1995 if it is legal, right now, to ask for those things? Hoyer stated, my feeling is, the biggest issue for most of the people is, the mass and scale, the size of the thing. So, maybe, it will be easier to ask for a Bed & Breakfast and look to some other use and scale it down, and it may, in fact, go through much better than trying to do two things. Vickery stated, to go one more step. You've got two things, one of them is a use and the other thing is the structure, and as far as I'm concerned, personally, a Bed & Breakfast use would be O.K. as long as it doesn't impact the structure to the point where it hurts the historical character. If it did, then, I would have to recommend against it, obviously, from an historical preservation point of view. So, your issue there is, can you accommodate the use that you want without endangering or hurting. Clark stated, I must tell you, that you can't keep coming up with designs unless you find out what your legal FAR is, and we don't know that yet, O.K. so, right now it appears that there is no ADU in the works. We don't need to do that, but we have to pay a mitigation. So, you don't like the size of the ADU, but you, I'm sure, won't turn down the cash we will have to pay if we don't provide it, is that correct? Vickery stated, the ADU only needs to be 300 square feet, it is relatively small, and it's not a bad thing to have something like that, particularly, if you are a Bed & Breakfast. Dodington stated, actually, I would rather change my vote to vote for the ADU and not the free market unit. Did you plan to live in that and run the thing, because it seems like the person who owns it and runs it could live elsewhere, and the Bed & Breakfast could be as is, like you say. I think it is nice that you are keeping it exactly as it is, even inside, I think that's good. Clark stated, on a personal level, in terms of planning for this property, my life is such that I couldn't live in the house or the free market unit; I have a family and it wouldn't do to live on the property. Nor could we afford to live in the main house; I want to share that with you, so we have to find the best use main house. We have restored it to its original integrity and we have had it on the market for two years and no one has looked at it and we are trying to come up with some other uses for it. Now, someone could come in and build a free market unit; we're just trying to keep the property intact. I have another suggestion, why doesn't the City buy it as a museum and then, you "guys" could have it and keep it, 17 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION AUGUST 22, 1995 you don't have to have parking, and we would be happy. It is very frustrating to deal with something and keep it historical and not have any options. Dodington stated, couldn't the person who runs it live in the ADU, and not have the free market unit. Yokum stated, absolutely, that's the concept. Dodington stated, wouldn't that kind of cover your costs? Clark stated, yes, the potential cost. It is expensive. That house was not given to us, we were given a debt on the house, so when we inherited it, we inherited a debt, a huge debt, so we have been trying to cover that debt and we are trying to figure out how. I don't know of any other way, other than coming up with another use, or the free market. Garton stated, the free market is a right in the development of an historical property, we're just trying to get everything reduced, Casey. Yokum stated, the architecture, we can work with this until I think the free market unit will look as similar to the historic unit and as part of it as possible. Hoyer asked, have you discussed with staff at all how HPC looks at additions to historic structures? Do you have any concept of how we look at it and what we want? Clark stated, yes. Amy Amidon replied, yes. Hoyer stated, the reason I asked, is that you just made a statement which sent a little flag up; we do not ask that an addition to an historic structure, be it landmarked or otherwise, mimic the historic structure. We like to have it shown that it is different; it's different materials, different style, but it is similar and flows with. We don't like to see that it is attached to, so that it dominates the historic structure in some way, we would prefer that it is attached to by a quarter, if possible, in space allowance, we would prefer that it is subservient to the historic structure, if at all possible, and those are real issues that you need to be clear on before you come in conceptually or otherwise, so you don't spend a lot of money with a design that isn't going to get you anywhere. That's why I asked the question, because you said something that gave me an indication, since this is a discussion worksession, that I don't want you to be put in that position, and I want you to be real clear about what we look for. 18 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION AUGUST 22, 1995 Clark stated, I would like to say that Amy and Leslie have done a great job. I think the architectural design, we're not at that place yet, we are still working on the variances. Hoyer stated, the other reason that I asked that, is when I looked at this, my first reaction to this was, this is huge. This is gross in mass and scale compared to the historic structure, so, this, from your perspective, is a very poor thing to submit to us preliminarily, because it gives a negative reaction (referring to the pictures). Garton stated, now, we have to end this, and must close this meeting, really. Lamont stated, you may not feel this, but I think we have established some ground rules here and we have a lot of work we need to do with Casey regarding floor area, existing floor area, and what can be proposed, and I think we have some good ideas and some flexibility, and we have some options here. None of you voted unanimously on any of Roger's conceptual questions and what that means to me is that there's still room for a lot of discussion and what would really be important is the next meeting, whether it is conceptual with HPC, or another conceptual worksession with HPC, or whatever, that the design and the architecture is the next element. I think we have a lot of "stuff" that we can work with here and I am encouraged. Clark stated, I appreciate your time, but I just think that you have so many rules, and I will tell you, the three garages and the ADU is not necessarily the component ideas, it is what we are told that we think is necessary, so that we come up with conceptual designs. Lamont stated, that's why we wanted to have the worksession rather than spend more money on plans. Clark stated, I think it is important to have more worksessions, and I know that is hard, but somehow it has to be managed, so people don't have to go to a lot of expense. We didn't mean to come in here prematurely. Hadsen stated, the other problem with coming to a Board like this, I mean, you come with all these good intentions and then, we're not really focusing on the issue that you came with, and that was, conceptually, and we have just about done a full circle on every other issue. That's hard for a applicant to deal with. There is a lot of information gained from it, but it is difficult. 19 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION AUGUST 22, 1995 Hoyer stated, you're going to have a great project, it's going to work out fine. When you eventually come in, even though it costs a little bit more, do a model, and do a simple massing model of the neighboring structures, and that will get you a long ways through the process as opposed to this drawing. You also have a superb argument for some adjustments because of the structure next door. The structure next door, it is totally unfair to you, because you are on historic property, however, HPC cannot look at something which is next door to you, which mitigates your property far more than what you might add on, because we have no review over that property because it is not historic. AGENDA Lamont stated, let me tell you what is happening with your next agenda. The Alpine Lodge GMQS Exemption is off, and then, the AH/RO Discussion - TDR to Non-Contiguous Parcels, our problem is finding meeting times where Cindy (Houben) can now meet with us because she is so "maxed" out on the County side also. We were orginally trying to schedule another joint P&Z meeting for September 12th, and she just told me about an hour ago that September 12th is off as she has a whole other meeting that is in conflict. So, we will let you know. So, AH/RO Discussion is also off for September 5th. The items on the agenda tonight have been moved to September 5th, so, what is being moved to September 5th is; the Snowbunny Conditional Use Review for an Accessory Dwelling Unit and the Vickery Code Amendments. Lamont continued stating, the Ordinance 30 Worksession, primarily we want to bring you "up to speed" in case somebody needs to appeal a residential design standard and they chose to appeal it to the P&Z versus the Design Review Appeal Board (DRAB). So, that worksession is off and will probably be on the 5th or on the 19th (September). Lamont stated, (Regular Heeting - September 19) Water Place Affordable Housing Worksession is definitely on, Marolt Housing PUD Amendment is off. Garton asked, are they not going to ask for that anymore (Harolt Housing)? Lamont answered, we are requesting them to really crack down on parking and who they rent to; renting to people who do not 20 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION AUGUST 22, 1995 have cars, put boulders in the road so people can't park in the road (the access road). So, you may see this again in February or March. Garton stated, I have a suggestion on that, that maybe they find a place to store cars. Lamont stated, they are going to explore that but it is so difficult because people don't want to store their cars where they know they may not be secure and things like that. We're talking about the airport intercept parking lot now. There was discussion regarding the absences and excused absences of the Commissioners and Lamont stated she would bring it up with City Attorney Worcester regarding the ruling on absences and the appointment of another alternate member for the Planning & Zoning Commission. There was concern because there was no quorum at this meeting. Heeting was adjourned at 6:30 P.H. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Carrillo, Deputy City Clerk 21 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION AUGUST 22, 1995 22