Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19950905 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Sara Garton at 4:30 P.M. She requested roll call. Present were: Sara Garton, Jasmine Tygre, Roger Hunt, Tim Mooney, and Steve Buettow. Excused were: Robert Blaich and Marta Chaikovska. COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS Garton asked, Leslie (Lamont), did you get a chance to talk to John Worcester what absences mean in the code, and whether it is appropriate, since we serve at the pleasure of the Council, whether it is our role or if it is the role of the Council? Lamont stated, she had not, but would talk to Attorney Worcester. She mentioned also that an alternate had not been chosen for the Commission and that she would address that. Tygre asked, when you apply for a Tree Removal Permit, are there certain criteria that they use to salvage whether you can cut down a tree? Lamont answered, they try and work with people and suggest alternatives. That is something we are trying to do more with the Planning process; for example, 204 E. Durant where we told them to use the PUD process to save a pine tree. The Parks Department really cannot tell someone that they cannot cut a tree down if it is in the way of the building footprint. What they do is, they assess the health of the tree; if it is dying they don't mind because it saves the City money, and if it is 6 inches in calibre then they will require on-site mitigation or they will try and work with the person to see if the tree can be relocated. The problem they run into is, if they tell someone that they cannot cut the tree down, the people will slowly kill the trees, so they can say, it is dead. It is happening over at Wagner Park; different people will use the park so the pine trees along the side are in the viewplane of spectators and people playing soccer or rugby, and George (Robinson) is noticing that people are girding the trees hoping they will die. They do try and work with people. PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 Tygre stated, on Ovraut Street, they used to have beautiful, huge, blue spruce trees that lined the whole side of Durant Avenue, right in front of the property. Obviously, that blocks your view of the mountains, and the last time I went by there, they were in the middle of cutting the trees down. I called the Parks Department and they said they had a permit for that. A couple of years ago, when they first started cutting the trees, they said they were only cutting down one tree and that was a dying tree. Those trees have been there for 20 something years, and I know, because I live right past that street. They are doing what you said, they are systematically killing off the trees and then cutting them down because they interfere with views. Is there anything we can do, if anybody else thinks this is not a very nice thing to do? Lamont stated, I asked George (Robinson of Parks Department) about that cottonwood they were taking down. During the development, they killed the tree when they were excavating. Before development took place they were able to assess what trees were healthy and what would remain and what would not and they are going to replace, on-site, calibre per calibre. They killed the tree, not on purpose, but as part of the development. The 60 foot spruce that had been on that site, that was where one of the units needed to go, we got mitigation for that. Tygre stated, there were a whole string of spruces in front of that and they were all huge, and there's not a tree left, except on the far corner. It is really pathetic. Lamont stated, another thing the Parks Department is doing when they look at new developments like Juanstreet, for example, is trying to work with people on placing trees in a way that ten or fifteen years down the road we won't have this problem. Tygre asked, is there anything we can do; the Parks Department do a survey before the landscape plan is approved, so that we have some kind of grip on this? Lamont answered, the Parks Department is one of our primary referral agencies when an application comes in. They figure out what is important to save. I will find out from George exactly what type of mitigation we are getting on that. Tygre said it would certainly help if we could find out. Lamont stated, we have recently amended our Tree Removal Permit Program to capture trees PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION SEPTEHBER 5, 1995 that never reach 6 inches in calibre, for example, the scrub oak, and we are attempting to protect other species. If someone relocated a tree on-site, we have no ability to enforce that that tree stay alive, and then, if it dies, to have recourse. Would you like me to invite the Parks Department to give you an update? Garton stated, I think it is very important, and there is a reason those trees are down, but let's find out why. Tygre stated, I would like to, because as I said, it looks to a lot of people, not just me, that they just chop these trees down because they are in the way of view, and all these beautiful trees that were such a nice feature of the neighborhood, are now just gone. PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS Lamont stated, I want to call your attention to a special meeting we have set up with the County P&Z, September 26th. It will start at 4:30 P.M., to hopefully finalize our RO/AH Discussion. Also, give you an Aspen Community Plan update as to what we want to do next year as far as the goals and recommendations we plan to pursue. As far as the discussions Tim (Hooney) has been bringing up at the P&Z meetings, I thought that would be a nice place to move it in, because we will be talking about the commercial growth management at that time. Lamont read a note from former Chairman Bruce Kerr thanking staff and the Commission for the retirement party so graciously hosted by the Blaich's. He expressed to the Commission to keep up the good work and to keep fair and balanced application of our codes and treatment of our citizens. PUBLIC COP~V/ENTS There were none. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 MINUTES Tygre moved to approve the minutes of August 22, 1995. Hunt seconded. Vote was unanimous in favor, motion carried. 525 W. HALLAM LANDMARK DESIGNATION Garton opened the public hearing. Hunt asked if the applicant, Julie Wyckoff, had any concerns regarding Hunt sitting on the Commission, as he was a neighbor. Wychoff stated she had no problems with Hunt sitting on the Commission making decisions regarding the application. Amy Amidon of Community Development represented staff and presented stating, staff and HPC recommend that P&Z approve landmark designation of this property. It contains a house, the Horace Severeux, which was built in approximately 1886, and two outbuildings, one of which is historic. Finding in Standard B, it is a simple Victorian cottage, it has had some alterations, and is about to undergo a restoration process which will significantly increase its contribution to the neighborhood. Standard D. Neighborhood Character. The surrounding neighborhood contains a number of other historic landmarks. The structure represents the historic scale of the neighborhood. Standard E. Community Character. It is representative of the scale, style and character of homes constructed during the mining era, a primary period of significance. Glenn Atwell, representing the Wyckoff's, stated, we have gotten HPC's final approval for what we are proposing. He passed out some photographs for the Commission to view. PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 Hunt asked, what is the status of the setback encroachments that I heard from second and third parties, that this applicant was requesting from HPC? Amidon responded stating, the post redevelopment has nothing to do with the landmark process, we are supposed to judge on the basis of those standards. They are restoring the original house, doing about a 400 sq. ft., 1-1/2 story addition. There is an encroachment because of the addition in terms of combined side yard setbacks; they keep their combined but they meet their minimum on each side. There is a one-story stable in the back that currently sits on the lot line and will remain on the lot line. Hunt stated, that storage shed, or whatever you want to call it, that is not being moved within a side yard setback encroachment? Amidon answered, it is being moved to the 5 foot minimum, so it won't be an encroachment. Hunt asked, was the neighbor able to express his comments about that satisfactorily? Amidon responded, two neighbors, I'm not sure which ones you have spoken to, but they both participated in the public hearings, and I think had some good input for the renovation aspects of project. Hopefully, their concerns were heard. Garton asked if there were any members of the public who wished to speak about the application. There were no public comments. MOTION Tygre moved to approve landmark designation of Lots C, D, and the west half of Lot E, Block 29, City and Townsite of Aspen, finding that standards B, E and F are met. Hunt seconded. Vote was unanimous in favor, motion carried. The applicants for Snowbunny were informed by Sharon Carrillo that their time on the agenda was at a later time frame so Garton asked the Commission and staff if Vickery Text Amendments could be moved before the Snowbunny Conditional Use Review for an Accessory Dwelling Unit. Commission and staff agreed. PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 VICKERY TEXT AMENDMENTS Leslie Lamont and Amy Amidon represented staff, as Mary Lackner was out of town. Lamont stated, the proposal is for a code amendment to allow a lot split in the R-6 zone district for parcels that are between 9,000 and 12,000 sq. ft. and have been historically landmarked. The historic landmark status would carry the entire parcel and it would enable one lot of a minimum size of 3,000 sq. ft. Last time you reviewed this it appeared not to be the concept itself in allowing a lot split for an historic landmark parcel creating a second parcel that was less than 6,000 sq. ft., which is a minimum size limitation in the R-6 zone district. It was a variety of other aspects of the code amendment that staff was split on. That gravitated toward the bonuses that were being applied to this parcel. By staff's memo, staff has gone back and met over this proposal and is recommending what the applicant has originally proposed. At what level do you want to combine the HPC incentives that are available in our code for this new subdivision process. Lamont continued stating, primarily, the applicant was requesting that the floor area bonus that is available to historic landmarks could be applied to this property, various dimensional requirement variances, side yard setbacks, rear yard setbacks. When we revised our lodge and residential sections of our growth management program, we made lot split, although it is still exempt from subdivision and exempt from going through growth management, we now only have one exemption a year available. This text amendment is also proposing that that one exemption a year not apply to lot splits or historic landmarks. It is also proposing that, as far as getting that exemption from growth management, that it not go to the Growth Management Commission. It is different from how we have recently set up how we review residential development. Garton stated, you are saying that there is now only a certain number of lot splits that are now allowed, is that what you said? Lamont clarified, no. In the City you had residential development that happened via growth management process, the competition process. Then you had a certain amount of residential development PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 that happened that is exempt from growth management. Before we only had a pool for the competition, we never kept track of who came through an exemption process, and we never had a limit on an annual basis of how many exemptions. I am only talking residential. One of the biggest exemptions from growth management and from keeping track of it on an annual basis were lot splits. What we have done, we have said that lot splits are still exempt from having to go through the competition growth management. Garton stated, you mean the development that happens is a result of the lot split? Lamont stated, it never did. We are saying it still doesn't have to go through, but we are now putting the cap on how many exemptions a year we are going to give out. A lot split is one of those exemptions that now has a cap. There are a couple of other residential exemptions in the code, lot split is by far, prominent. Garton asked, what is the cap? Lamont answered, there are two a year but we split it; we are talking rental area. There are two a year. We split it between the County and the City. You cannot even apply for that lot split if that exemption has been used up. Creating a lot creates a development right, they are one and the same. Garton asked, how do you determine who gets the lot split? Lamont answered, by the date that they apply. It starts January 15, if we have four applicants by January 15, we make sure that those applications were complete. If we have four completed applications, we have a lottery. What Jake (Vickery) is proposing is that that lot split for historic landmarks is exempt from the exempt, exempt from the pool, and that it is a Planning Director Exemption, not an exemption from the Growth Management Commission. Vickery stated, I would like to give a brief presentation. Garton stated, only if there is something new. We have seen Jake four times, this is the fourth time. I think everyone is "up to speed" on this. Vickery stated, it has been a month since we met last and I would like to go over a few portions of the most recent memo. Garton agreed to that. Vickery stated, applicant and staff are in agreement in terms of what is being proposed. We were quite a bit apart, I think it is great that things have come together. If you refer to your review standards, A through I, I don't think there is anything in those standards that is problematic to the code amendment. Going further PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 to Page 5, Staff Recommendation, applicant and staff are in agreement. The only item I would like to discuss is Item 5-3 stating "the proposed development meets all dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district. HPC variances and bonuses are only permitted on the parcel which contains the historic structure". This code amendment will eliminate the need for substantial number of variances in this kind of situation. I have no problem with the bonus being only assigned to the historical parcel, so the only thing that would remain there is whether or not the variances should be able to be applied for the other second site. I would reiterate the idea that it is HPC's authority. The applicant can make a suitable argument that what they are proposing is more compatible to the historical resource than what would otherwise be allowed. I don't see any reason to close that flexibility down. Vickery continued stating, I did a comparison between what what I call a One-A-Year Growth Lot Split and one called an Historic, FAR Restricted No Growth Lot Split. Vickery passed out to the Commission a sheet entitled as such. Vickery stated, in the One-A- Year Growth Lot Split what we are doing is taking a lot that qualifies for a lot split to be 12,000 sq. ft. or greater. We subdivide that down into two parcels that are 6,000 sq. ft. each. There is no increase in the dwelling units that can be built. The growth is represented in the change in the FAR. If you refer to that right column you will see that the Net Change; the allowable FAR on the 12,000 foot parcel goes up 2,640 sq. ft. on a single family situation or 2,940 sq. ft. on a duplex situation. There is no change in the number of dwelling units, it is the size of the amount of FAR, unless this is a landmarked parcel, then you are in a different program. By comparison to the historical FAR Restricted No-Growth Lot Split, there is no change in the dwelling units and there is also no change in the FAR, whether it is single family or duplex. What is proposed is to emulate what is already in the code, with the one exception that we change the method that the properties can be owned. Lamont stated, being exempt from growth management versus being exempt from growth management, is what Jake is proposing. There are two units that he built on a property greater than 6,000 sq. ft. and that is historically landmarked. They do not realize two separate lots. That is still allowed as an exemption from growth PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 management as a full exemption. It doesn't come out of another pool. Garton stated, Jake, is your argument, keeping it out of the pool because it actually doesn't change anything? Outside of an historic parcel it does change. That is a good reason because we are getting more growth. Vickery stated, there is no growth associated with what is being proposed here. Tygre asked, on your H, the response talks about condominiumization but I can't tie it into anything else. It doesn't seem to relate to H. Garton stated, because the way it is now, Jasmine, he can do this and condominiumize the other building. He doesn't want to do that. Tygre again stated, I don't see where it ties into anything. Lamont stated, people have pursued land condominiumizations and the City Attorney, based upon our existing code, says people can do that. He is also advising us to take it out of the code. Right now, the code allows that. We have had a recent interpretation by our City Attorney that says that somebody can do a condominimization like this, without subdividing their property. Tygre stated, I'm trying to understand this. Currently, it can be condominiumized, or not? Lamont answered, it can be. Tygre stated, I can't find anything that says this will change or not change. Lamont stated, on this parcel, because it is an historic landmark, Jake can build a second home on this parcel. Because he has the ability to condominiumize the parcel, not subdivide, but condominiumize, he can create two separate ownerships on this parcel, currently. What Hary (Lackner) is saying, he can do that anyway, so the lot split is not going to affect the neighborhood one way or the other. Just the lot split. Our City Attorney is saying, people can use land condominiumizations and he has advised us to go back into the code and take that out. Tygre stated, it still creates separate ownership without going through the condominiumization process? Lamont stated, there's two ways, condominiumization or subdividing land. PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 Tygre stated, what I am concerned about is I can't find that in the recommendation. The purpose of this thing is to be able to create two separate ownerships regardless of whether it is condominiumized or not? This is a code amendment. Lamont stated, what Hary is recommending is the language in bold and what would be new in the code. In our code we have the subdivision section, which talks about dividing land and within the subdivision section we have several subdivision exemptions. That means they do not have to go through the full subdivision process; a lot split is one of them. What Hary is doing, she is adding a new section under subdivision exemptions, saying for historic landmark lot splits, that is now a new subdivision exemption. She is laying out parameters for somebody to do this lot split. Somebody could still, if they didn't want to go through this, request condominiumization. Hunt stated, I'm adamant about retaining three as it is. I don't see where any special benefit should accrue to the non-historic property, particularly setbacks. I have a real problem with that. Buettow stated, there was discussion about how the lots would be divided up at the last meeting; in relation to doing a 6,000 sq. ft. pretty straight forward conforming lot and a 3,000 sq. ft. lot as the second split off one. How was that resolved, is that under G? Lamont stated, I think it is covered on the bottom of Page 5, Hedium Density and then, the lot size. Buettow asked, so it does conform to the 6,000, 3, 0007 Lamont answered, an historic lot split 3,000, that's the minimum size that lot can be. You could have a 6,000 sq. ft. lot that could be 3,000 and 3,000, or you could have a 12,000 sq. ft. that could be 6,000 and 6,000. The idea being the minimum lot size. Garton asked, can it be 3,000 and 9,000? Lamont answered, yes, it can be. Of the two that you create, one of them cannot be less than 3,000. Vickery stated, the reason for that was that historical structures come in all kinds of configurations and if you were to limited to making a new lot 6,000 sq. ft., that would force the other lot to be only 3,000 sq. ft. in a 9,000 sq. ft. condition. It means it is only 30 feet wide, and that means the historical resource could be no more than 20 feet wide. It is somewhat unworkable. The house I am working with is 37 feet wide and to get reasonable setbacks it needs to be on a larger parcel and the other one has to be smaller. 10 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 I think it is good to keep the flexibility. It all has be be approved by HPC. Lamont stated, let's say you have a 6,000 and a 3,000 sq. ft. lot, you created a 6,000 and 3,000, but your 6,000 just wasn't big enough. The second lot can only go to 3,000 sq. ft. That is what this is saying. Garton stated, I have a comment regarding Jake's request that this new lot split goes exempt from the pool. I am in favor of that because I see that it might be a good incentive to save some historic structures. If it is that harsh I'm afraid people are not going to ask for it. I think it is a "carrot" to say it is exempt from the pool, go ahead and do this lot split, and save that historic structure and the size that it is now. Tygre stated, I wouldn't mind so much if I knew that you were going to stay as a one per year thing. One per year I don't think is going to make a huge difference. Benefits of the incentive would outweigh the negative impacts of one exemption a year. I am a little concerned about the way the exemption is going to be awarded, if there is only one. Unless everybody who is possibly considering doing this is fully notified that it is first come, first serve or lottery-type thing, it is not a very fair way to apportion only one. That really concerns me. Garton stated, what I am talking about is what Jake is proposing, the historic ones are not pulled from the pool. Tygre stated, yes, but my answer to you is, if there is only going to be one of these a year I don't think it is going to make a significant affect on the growth management. If only one gets it, this is an ancillary issue. Where are we getting this one a year? Lamont stated, one a year would be anybody else who wanted to do a lot split and their property is not eligible for an historic landmark status, but they have a 12,000 sq. ft. parcel and want to create a second parcel, 6,000 sq. ft., say, in the west end, but not historically landmarked. Tygre stated, those are the one a year people, I'm sorry, but I got confused. Garton stated, what staff is saying is, if this historic lot split happens, then they have to come up with one a year. Hy concern is we are not going to get any historic lot splits, that is too much to go 11 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 through. I would rather see them exempt from the pool because we might save the smaller historic structures. Vickery added, these lots couldn't go through the regular lot split because they are not big enough. You have to have a minimum of 12,000 feet to run through the regular growth control lot split. These are 9,000 to 12,000 foot parcels. Tygre stated, I have to say, as a general thing, I am really opposed to exemptions from growth management. The problems we have found, especially in terms of housing, have to do with the large number of exemptions that have taken place over the years that were not factored in and not mitigated for. I am going to suspend judgement, I am saying as a general approach. Hunt stated, my concern here is that we are creating incentive with historic lot splits to create non-conforming parcels. Just to open that up, I have some reservations about that. We can deal with these one or two a year, but I don't want to see every 9,000 sq. ft. parcel with a little historic structure on it, or 7,500 ft. parcel, or whatever square footage parcel you can come up with. all of a sudden to be "eyeing" this as a way of lot splitting. From a land use point of view, all we are going to get out of it is an historic structure and a 3,000 ft. parcel that in the past has been a non-conforming parcel. The giant size is going to go to the new development and I'm not sure that that is beneficial from the point of view of land use. Garton asked, were there 22 possible parcels? Vickery answered, 21, at the most. Amidon stated, in response to Roger's feelings, if I understand them right, we are talking about something that can already happen visually. You can already have these two units. Yes, it may be creating non-conforming lots but that is not going to have a visual impact and we are talking about restricting the overall FAR for the property and keeping it at the duplex level. I don't see this turning into a bulk issue. I don't see how the non-conformities will impact in a negative way that negates the positive impacts of smaller structures, smaller units. Hooney asked, why does it start at 9,000 feet? Why doesn't it start at 6,000 ft? If someone has a landmark, a 6,000 sq. ft. lot, 12 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 he could do exactly what he could do under both these circumstances. The only thing is, he can't have separate ownership. He has to stay with the condominium rule. So if what we are trying to do is clean up this condominiumization of land, which is one of the ideas of the City Attorney, why did you pick 9,000 sq. ft.? Vickery responded saying, for one thing we want to keep it as simple as possible, because it can include other categories and other zones in this. A lot that is between 6,000 and 9,000 sq. ft., by the code currently, is limited to the FAR of a single- family residence, not a duplex. It is a little bit smaller. I think that, to me, the 9,000 to 12,000 sq. ft. lots can handle a dual house kind of condition, whereas a 6,000 ft. lot gets more problematic. Hooney stated, I don't see why, in principle, what we are doing, is to make a text amendment to satisfy the needs; we're not satisfying the needs of everybody. Vickery stated, I don't have any problem with adding the 6,000 sq. ft. I felt it would be more acceptable to the Board, and it seemed to be more acceptable to staff, to keep it with the larger lots. Hooney stated, if you are making it sense for people who have 9,000 sq. ft., and not making it sense for people who have 6,000 sq. ft., who have the same intention of preserving their historic landmark, I don't get it. Hunt stated, all of a sudden, the thing I'm not getting too, is now we are talking about a lot split of 6,000 sq. ft. Where did we make this jump that there would be two residences on 6,000 sq. ft.? Hooney stated, I remember when it happened, and it was to keep the historic structure; you could build out the remaining FAR in another structure so you didn't have to put these big bustles on the back. You could leave the intregrity of the structure. Let us say you have 7,500 sq. ft. and you could make a lot split of two 3,500 sq. ft. lots, have an historic structure on one, and have a new smaller structure that builds out the FAR that is allowed on that 7,500 sq. ft. in a separate structure. Not historical, I don't know, then we start playing with are we really not increasing density. You can do that now, it is just the way you own it is what we are talking about. I don't get the 9,000 sq. ft. 13 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 Lamont stated, can I just tell you what the code says, it is still confusing to me. We are only talking R-6 zone district. Hinimum lot size is 6,000 sq. ft. Hinimum lot size for detached residential dwelling is 6,000 sq. ft. A duplex may be developed on a lot of 8,000 sq. ft. that was subdivided as of April 28, 1975. Lamont questioned the zoning of Race Street. Vickery stated, Race St. is R-6. Hunt stated, isn't it R6-A; they have different side-yard setbacks and they are slightly larger than 6,000 sq. ft. Lamont stated, (referring to zoning map), in that area over there a duplex could be built on the lot of 7,500 sq. ft. that was subdivided and annexed subsequent to January 1, 1989. That was that little area that was annexed in with Hunter Creek, Centennial, Race Street, zoned R-6. You could put a duplex on 7,500 sq. ft., right now. Hunt stated, isn't that R6-A? Lamont replied, John Busch wanted to do R6-A. It shouldn't be R6-A; what they did is they took the things that they would have put into R6-A and made it part of R-6. Hunt asked, who, when you say they? Lamont answered, I don't know. Hunt asked, was this something that happened after P&Z looked at it; I thought when it went out of P&Z it left R6-A? Lamont stated, we are not here to talk about R6-A. Hunt stated, what you are saying is, because that R6-A has now become R-6, all of a sudden, we're throwing everything that could have occurred there over back on the old R-6. This has all happened through a back door, I'm afraid. Lamont responded saying, what they did was, they took the things that made people want to create R6-A and incorporated into R-6. The west end has never been annexed into the City so it doesn't apply to the west end. Hunt stated, in other words, they are, in affect, R6-A, they just didn't call it R-6. What you are telling me now, is that if we have a 7,500 foot parcel over there in the conventional R-6, they are, number one, not entitled to a duplex. Number two, just because it has an historic structure are you allowing it to occur over in the R-6 annex, instead of R6-A? I think that is wrong, if that is what is happening. That is changing the zoning over there through the back door. Lamont stated, Roger, Jake's code amendment has nothing to do with R6-A, it is a code amendment that affects R-6. The code amendment 14 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 is saying that you could have two detached homes on creating two lots if parcels are between 9,000 to 12,000 sq. ft. Lamont continued, stating, otherwise a duplex must be developed with a minimum lot area of 4,500 sq. ft. per dwelling unit, unless the property contains an historic landmark, in which case, a duplex or two detached residential dwelling units may be developed with a minimum lot area of 3,000 sq. ft. per unit. How you calculate the FAR for that is, the floor area ratio for two detached residential dwelling units or a duplex on a lot between 6,000 and 9,000 sq. ft., containing an historical landmark, should not exceed the floor area allowed for one detached residential dwelling unit. That is between 6,000 and 9,000. Total historic floor area ratio for two detached residential dwelling units on a lot of 9,000 sq. ft. or greater should not exceed the floor area allowed for one duplex. Jake is consistent with that. Hooney stated, who is going to come back in, what applicant is going to go through the headache and expense, like Jake is, to do this 6,000 to 9,000 phase of it? That might not ever happen. If we are going to allow ownership to be realized separately from 9,000 to 12,000, what is the difference? Is the City going to come back in and apply for this text amendment just to clean up the code? No. That is all we are talking about here, the way you can hold ownership. Hunt stated, here is my problem, you are not only creating a classical, non-conforming lot; historically in our land use code, you are creating a non-conforming lot to retain the historic structure; you are also creating another non-conforming lot for the new structure. There are two 3,000 sq. ft. lots that are two classically, non-conforming lots, instead of one classically, non- conforming lot to protect the historic structure. That to me is a gigantic leap that I cannot accept. Tygre stated, I would like to echo that. In the past we went through a lot of things about non-conformities and it does eventually impose, especially hardships on the owners of those parcels and they come in for relief in one form or another because they can't get financing, the can't do improvements, they can't do whatever it is. I think judging the past, we aren't doing them any big favor to let this happen. 15 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 Garton stated, I have a suggestion. This has gone on for about two months. We could go ahead and move on what is before us now, but we could recommend to staff, and HPC particularly, to take a look at the code and simplify it. Garton asked if there was anyone from the public who wished to comment on the application. There were none. Tygre stated, I'm still having a hard time digesting this; I think this is more than what I feel comfortable with. How it may apply to other parcels is really questionable, and I feel very uncomfortable about passing this on. Garton stated, what Jake is proposing is very specific. Tygre stated, I'm still concerned about the creation of the non-conforming lots. I'm sorry, but if I was to vote anything on this, I would vote no. I would rather not as I don't have enough information. Hunt asked, could you go for staff writing a resolution for us to look at a future meeting? Tygre answered, I would like to see an analysis of this from the Planning Office. Vickery stated, (referring to Tygre), you weren't here for the original presentation, were you? Tygre answered, no, I could step down and you could still have a quorum. Hunt stated, you don't have to step down. Vickery stated, I request that you ask to step down because in fairness to you and fairness to me, there is a lot of information you are missing. Tygre stated, I leave that up to the Commission whether I step down or not. Garton stated, is anyone prepared to make a motion? There was no response from the Commission. Garton stated, it dies for lack of a motion. Vickery stated, we have looked at this for several months, I've tried to have a worksession to clear it out and find out what concerns are, I've spent a fortune pursuing this thing, as well as a hugh amount of time. It is a very important thing. I've tried to organize something that is acceptable to the staff, and acceptable to P&Z, and something that we could live with. I reiterated time before last, all the value that I believe that this ordinance has for the community. There is nothing going on here that isn't already allowed by the code, except that you improve for the owners of these properties, their taxing situation, their insurance situation, their financing situation, their maintenance 16 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 situation and their management situation. It is the same issues that Bob (Blaich), when he was here, brought up because he owns a similar condominiumized parcel. We've worked with staff, we've got the scenerio down to a fairly small window, which I was hopeful "folks" would be comfortable with. If you go back to the review standards a. through i., I don't know which review standard you can build a record on to trim this thing down. If you agree, I would still like this to go on to City Council. Garton stated, as Chairman, I'm not able to make a motion, and I would be very disappointed to see this not go forward. Hunt stated, I would support a motion for the Planning Office to write a resolution. I wouldn't vote for a motion to pass that on at this point. I think we need a resolution to look at before we send it on to Council. Lamont asked, a resolution recommending what? Hunt stated, recommending what is proposed here. Garton stated, I'm confused, I don't understand the difference between a resolution and recommending, we are an advisory board, anyway. Hunt stated, at least we can hammer out exactly what is going to be said before Council in our resolution, whereas now, we don't. Vickery stated, in the last meeting, when we were all here; I have the minutes and I tried to go through and see what everyone's concerns were and tried to address those in this revised memorandum. I think Hary tried to do that also. If leaving number 3. intact, that is acceptable, if that is what it takes to go forward. I don't know what else is left, this thing is compact and simple. Hunt stated, I agree with you, but I share skepticism with Jasmine, in this case. I want to see the words that go to Council. Yes, it is going to be basically what is here, but it is the difference of adopting a resolution as opposed to making a motion to recommend at this point, and that resolution will be our action to recommend to Council. I think this thing deserves a resolution. Lamont asked, Roger, would you also like to see in that resolution answers to questions that Jasmine had? 17 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 Garton asked, is this a motion, Roger? Hunt responded, if you would like me to make a motion, I will. MOTION Hunt stated, I move to request Plannin9 Office write a resolution to come back before us for scrutiny and approval for the Chairman's signature, basically forwarding a recommendation of approval for the historic lot split. Tygre seconded. Vote commenced, vote was 4 in favor, 1 opposed. Hotion carried. Lamont stated, this won't go forward to Council until the Chairman signs the resolution. The resolution will be in your packet to review on September 19th, 1995. SNOW-BUNNY CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT Dave Hichaelson represented for staff and stated, in addition there were two exhibits that were included in your last packet that were inadvertently not in this packet. Hichaelson passed out the information, a memorandum from Chuch Roth (Engineering), and a landscape plan. Hichaelson continued, as a recap, the applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for a 640 sq. ft. ADU. The ADU is below grade and there is no FAR bonus, so that is not factored into the FAR calculations. The applicant, Even Korn, will represent himself. Staff has also included the lot size and the FAR that is out there now in the form of a single-family dwelling unit, as well as the the proposed FAR and what is allowed. The project has gone through Ordinance 30 review; the only issue that was indicated by staff was the orientation of the structure itself. The orientation that is on that landscape plan represents the amendment that the applicant has made consistent with that review. In terms of referral comments, those are included in your staff packet. The Parks Department did have concerns about the lilacs that are on Snowbunny Lane. As you can see on the landscape plan, those lilacs will be retained. In addition, there was concern about the secondary access. That has also been eliminated, they would access the existing western, most accessed, point. The Engineering 18 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 Department did have a concern. They did question the appropriateness of duplexes; an additional duplex on Snowbunny Lane. I also know that that is use by right in zoning. Garton stated, I correct you, David, they questioned the ADU, an additional ADU. Hichaelson stated, if memory serves me correct, he was also concerned about the duplex. In addition, Chuck mentioned a 5 foot pedestrian path that is included in conditions of approval. With the Housing Office, there is one thing I would like to note, and Evan's architect also noted this; there was some confusion on the site plan, based from the Housing Office, that the only access to the mechanical room is through the ADU. That is not the case. What Housing is getting at is the idea that that should be an exclusive, private unit, and by eliminating the doorway, which I have shown on that site plan, that does get to Housing's comments. Hichaelson stated, staff has gone through all the material that you have to review an ADU. I won't go through them specifically, I will note that with the Aspen Area Community Plan there is significant language devoted to providing housing for residents. One more troublesome issue, I know you are going to hear from the public on that, is the issue of compatibility. The ADU in the area, as I am sure you are aware, approximately 50% of the units there have transition to duplexes. The view on the part of the residents, that ADU may represent the impact associated with a tri- plex. The City has pursued a study of ADUs and how they are used. That study is going to the Council, I think, in two weeks. Lamont stated, it will be in Council's packet on Honday night (September 11, 1995), and if Council does not add any changes to our survey, it will be mailed out September 20th, 1995. The ADU Survey. Michaelson stated, I haven't seen it, so I cannot address what is in there. In terms of operating characteristics, staff has summarized the public service impacts. I would note, there were some issues with two curb cuts. That has been elminated through a single curb cut on the driveway. In addition, the applicant will be required to get a landscape plan reviewed by the Parks Department due to several trees (I counted five) that would be eliminated. Parking was brought up by Engineering, and the code exempts a single-bedroom ADU from providing an on-site parking space, but if I'm not wrong, that has been handled through conditions in the past. 19 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 Hichaelson stated, in closing, staff has recommended approval, assuming you feel comfortable with the compatibility issues. Ail conditions of approval include recommendations by Engineering, Parks and Housing, in addition, there is an alternative motion based on a public hearing if you don't feel comfortable with that additional ADU. Garton opened the public hearing. Affidavit of Notice was presented to the Clerk. (Attached in record.) Evan Korn, the applicant, stated, you are going to hear how this ADU increases the density. I would like to add, this ADU directly replaces a full bedroom and a full bathroom in the house that is not built in addition to the full sized house. It is a direct replacement. That is all I have to say. Chuck Vidal, resident of Snowbunny Lane, stated, it is our understanding that there are a number of options available to the applicant, and I ask whether you have the ability to modify that or pick a different option that he has picked, or whether you have just ability to approve or deny the application as it has been presented. It is not clear in my mind as to what action we will be taking this evening, subject to all of the discussion you are hearing. Hichaelson stated, there are four options that the applicant has. First is opt for duplex. There is a free market and RO greater than 1,500 sq. ft. The second option is two free markets and one ADU, that is what is in front of you. The third is, two deed- restricted resident occupant units. The last one is, the Housing Impact Fee. I played around with some numbers and square footage, but what you do, is substract what is out there now, which is roughly 2,000 sq. ft., from what he is proposing and times it by $19.17, and you get somewhere in the neighborhood of between $55,000 and $60,000. Garton stated, that is cash-in-lieu, Chuck. Vidal stated, I understand. Is your deliberation to select one of those four, or to approve the application as it has been presented, or disapprove it? Hichaelson answered, if the Planning Commission denies the ADU, then, Evan has three choices. 2O PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 Lamont stated, I might add, the Planning & Zoning Commission, can modify the accessory dwelling to the fact that it is not a separate dwelling unit available for rental as a separate dwelling unit. He is choosing to provide an accessory dwelling unit and if he is going to provide an accessory dwelling unit there are certain parameters that go along with that in review. It can't be less than 300 sq. ft., it has to have a full kitchen, a full bath, it has to have a completely separate entrance that is its own private, discreet entrance to that unit. Vidal stated, that clarification, to me, is very important. When you talk about a completely separate entrance, having its own kitchen; the way I perceived it to be is that this is an independent unit, it is not a bedroom that can be rented out. It has the impact, and it has the potential impact, of three families living in this building. The way it is perceived by the neighbors is that if every parcel within the Snowbunny Subdivision, if there were 34 lots to do that, you would have an increase of density of 50% or a third more. That has not only impact on a visual sense, but that has impacts in terms of traffic creation. It would have somewhere in the neighborhood of between 68 and 134 additional automobiles coming through what is considered to be one of the few resident occupied communities within the Aspen area. The way we see the legislation that allows this to occur, even though it was an attempt to not allow what has happened in the west end, it is going to accelerate what has happened in the west end. It is creating alternatives for a developer, like Hr. Korn, where it increases the cost, either in the cash-in-lieu or in having to provide an additional unit to where decisions are made on a purely economic basis, and that economic basis is increased by what the City is doing. I think it is accelerating a west end condition in the Snowbunny area. Richard Shaw, resident to the western side of the proposed duplex and ADU, a planner by profession who chaired a committee that was looking at the Design Symposium that resulted in neighborhood guidelines and Ordinance 30, stated his experience made him look, this last year, at what a neighborhood should be. He concluded that Snowbunny may have the best neighborhood values in the entire City of Aspen. He stated what the neighborhood does not want to do is create a change that is detrimental to the basic values held dearly; safety of streets, traffic volumes are low, interactions 21 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 between neighbors. He stated the worry about detrimental change, and that there were other options available to the applicant. Howell Mallory, resident of Snowbunny Lane, across from the applicant, thanked the applicant for preserving the lilac hedge of importance in the neighborhood. He spoke in concern for the neighborhood character, density, traffic impacts, parking, safety for children on the streets, and dogs on the streets. He spoke in keeping with the guidelines of Ordinance 30 and Ordinance 1. He said the applicant had other options and encouraged P&Z to reject and deny the ADU request. Lauren Cassatt, Snowbunny resident residing across the street from the applicant, asked, how are the ADUs policed by the Housing Authority, how do you know this is being used as it was intended? Garton answered, we are putting out a questionnaire that hopefully will go out the end of September. We do not know, however. When Council did this under Bill Stirling's council, the idea was that it was not required occupancy, but if it was rented, it had to be rented within the Housing guidelines and be deed registered. Lamont added, every applicant is required to file a deed restriction with the Housing Office. They have to do that in order to pull their building permits. Lamont further explained the deed restriction process to the public and explained the reason for the survey and alternatives to it. Nora Berko of the public asked, does this mean that this questionnaire that has gone out could potentially change the whole thrust of Ordinance 1, that it may be completely revisited? Lamont answered, it could. Berko stated, so, something that is passed today may be completely revisited and decided it was a mistake, although the intentions were right? Garton stated, I should give credit to the Council. They wanted to see if it would work voluntarily and in the spirit of the City. Lamont stated, I do want to add, any changes that we make to the program could not be retroactive. Ginny Wade Hyers, of the public, asked, could they sell this unit as a third unit? Lamont answered, no. Hyers voiced concern for 22 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 the children of the neighborhood and the neighborhood "feel" and freedom. She wanted no increase in automobiles. Bob Hyers, of the public, stated concern on the impact of the neighborhood by ADU. Linda Vidal, long-time Aspen resident, stated that she felt the character of the neighborhood could not be stressed enough. Chuck Vidal again spoke of his concern of change with the addition of ADUs. He felt the Snowbunny neighborhood was unique and very precious right now and did not want to risk these things. He stated, we like it the way it is. Hichaelson introduced a letter from the public, Beverly and John Reese, highly objecting to a duplex in the neighborhood. (Letter attached in record.) Garton stated, as the Commission knows, I voted against the ADU over on Waterplace Court; it did not meet criteria, b through c. I felt that that very tight small neighborhood, which is also a cul-de-sac idea, could not absorb an ADU. I think the fact that an ADU is a conditional use, it needs to meet certain conditions to be respected by the Commission. I am going to vote against this application based on the fact that it does not meet criteria b. and c. Hunt stated, I concur with that in this case, however, I want to point out a couple of sympathetic errors in the arguments I heard here. These units are generally 350 to 600 sq. ft., and I don't see that as serving a great number of people in a family. That argument, I was wondering, what you were trying to argue against there. I will probably make the motion to deny in this case, so I will vote in favor of that motion. An additional reason I will offer in this case is that this neighborhood already exhibits residential occupancy to a high degree. It is one of the background reasons for the ADU to try and get some residential activity back into a neighborhood. That is not necessary at this time in this particular neighborhood. Tygre stated, this is an unusual situation for an ADU. Most of the time when we see applications for ADUs there is a bonus FAR 23 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 involved. It seems to us a lot of times that some of the applicants are applying for the ADU just to get additional FAR and there is no intention of having the accessory dwelling unit occupied by a qualified person, it is just done to make a bigger structure. I think all the neighborhood people have been made aware that the size of the structure is not going to change because the ADU sits underground. What they are objecting to is the additional impact of the additional people. We would really like to have this in the west end, but I think in this neighborhood, it is really inappropriate because it is already a resident occupied neighborhood. I concur with the other members of the Commission that this neighborhood has a very strongly established characteristic of high resident occupancy and that in this particular instance, you don't really need to have the ADU for additional density. It would not be in keeping with the characteristics of the neighborhood. MOTION Hunt stated, I move to deny the Conditional Use of an accessory dwelling unit at 1225 Snowbunny Lane, finding that it is not compatable with the characteristics of the neighborhood in the immediate vicinity, and finding that the neighborhood already has a high degree of resident occupancy and, therefore, is very conforming to the Aspen Area Community Plan. I will include that there is incompatibility with Standards B. and C. Hooney seconded the motion. Vote commenced, vote was unanimous in favor, motion carried. Heeting formally adjourned at 6:30 P.H. There was a worksession on Ordinance 30 between staff and the Commission after the meeting. This worksession was not taped. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Carrillo, Deputy City Clerk 24 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 25