Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20000613ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 13, 2000 Bob Blaich opened the special meeting at 5:00 p.m. held in the Pitkin County Library. Commissioners present: Bob Blaich, Steven Buettow, Jasmine Tygre, Charles Vresilovic, Ron Erickson, Tim Mooney and Roger Hunt. City staff in attendance: Chris Bendon and Joyce Ohlson, Community Development Department. COMMISSIONER, STAFF & PUBLIC COMMENTS Bob Blaich stated that the Boomerang Lodge could be re-proposed as single-family homes, condominized or time-shared units. Blaich stated that this was never brought up before P&Z; he said that Julie Ann Woods stated that was not in the proposal now, which meant it was not under review. Roger Hunt stated that in the future the conditions on land use like this should be addressed. Ron Erickson stated that lodges had a six-month occupancy restriction. Tim Mooney stated that he asked if the Boomerang would remain operating as a Lodge at the P&Z hearing and that Charlie said that it would. Blaich agreed that the Boomerang stated that they would remain a lodge. Chris Bendon distributed the AACP. Bendon noted that Council was having a meeting on Burlingame Village now and a second meeting on this Thursday. Mooney stated that he would attend that meeting. Bendon stated that Council approved DRACO with 7 units, 6 parking spaces and the building was lowered to 3 stories. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST None. PUBLIC HEARING: TECHNIQUES TO CONTROL HOUSE SIZE Bob Blaich opened the public hearing. Chris Bendon stated the public hearing was properly noticed in the newspapers. He said the purpose of the meeting was to bring the commission up to date on the proposed amendments to house size regulations. This meeting was purely informational for the different presentation aspects on house size and to continue this public hearing to June 27, 2000 and for more pubic input. Alan Richman and Glenn Rappaport, consultants on project, presented the information in 5 pieces. (3 Proposed changes to the sliding scales of (FAR) Floor Area Ratio © Proposed Volume controls ® Proposed changes to Height Regulations ® Incentives for small houses on smaller lots ® Miscellaneous Issues. 1 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 13, 2000 Richman stated that on February 22, 2000 there was joint meeting with City Council, P&Z and HPC; he recalled the tour and a research paper (Evaluation of techniques to control house size in Aspen) which was the basic document for the issues of analysis. Richman said that from that work session, direction was given and there was no single solution to this concern that the review boards raised about house size controls. He said there were a series of factors and areas of the code that needed to be refined. Richman stated that sliding scale floor area ratio was adopted almost 20 years ago. He noted there were four scales with reductions to each (pages 4 through 9; Tables 1 & 2; Figures 1, 2, 3 & 4). Richman stated the intent was not to penalized the 6,000 square foot lot property owners but as lot size increased the amount of the FAR decrease increased; the 15,000 square foot had a 10% reduction with the 30,000 square foot lot reduction was in the 15% to 20% range. Richman noted in 1987-88 the FAR was recalculated in the R-6 zone district only and not in the R- 15, R-15A, R-30 was not re-figured leaving it out of touch with the rest of the FAR calculations. Richman stated that the underlying theme was to promote in-fill and for developers to build smaller houses on smaller lots. He said an example was that instead of one massive house on a 12,000 square foot lots would be a better solution to build 2 smaller houses on two 6,000 square foot lots. Richman stated that a square footage house size cap of 5,000 was presented for single-family houses and a 6,000 square foot cap on duplexes was suggested. Richman said that older homes still had the potential to add floor area by these proposed calculations from researching the files but the newer houses were built above these revised calculations for FAR and would not be allowed any more expansion. Richman stated that pages 11-12 dealt with phasing out the garage exemption calculations for houses over 4,500. Erickson asked why the garage square footage couldn't just be included in the entire square footage of the house because he said that he considered having a garage was a bonus. Richman replied that the calculations could be altered in any way. Richman said the R-15B was excluded from the garage situation; they received 500 square feet. Roger Hunt said that this was an incentive to not create alleys in new subdivisions. Richman responded that situation was not altered from the old code. Hunt stated if there was the ability to put in an alley in a new subdivision, then why not request 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 13, 2000 alleys. Blaich stated that Roger was correct not to inhibit that kind of thinking. Bendon stated that should come about through the subdivision standards revisions. Jasmine Tygre asked if they knew the number if lots in each size category. Richman replied that they did not but maybe could get those numbers from the GIS technology. Tygre stated that would be helpful. Richman said with the annexation of lager 2 acre parcels, these parcels may be affected. Sally Terpen, public, stated that she was a resident of Aspen 29 years and feared that people would build a family room rather than a garage. Erickson note that off- street parking might still be required. Oates stated that carports were considered garages. Michael Campbell, public, said that not only the visibility the car was a problem but it was the air quality of then having to warm-up the car without having a garage. Volume controls. Richman stated that this has been requested by numerous review boards for many years. He said that on some of the lots in town the land owners have more room with setbacks than can be filled by the "box" of the building on the lot; this then translates to an increase in volume by placing larger windows. Richman said the volume allowance would be the square footage times nine. Richman said that page 14 illustrated the plate height without penalizing the vaulted ceilings. He noted that a room with different plate heights would be averaged. This would only apply to private spaces. Richman stated that this would be reviewed in a year to see how it worked. Hunt stated that this was worth a try because it basically established a volume. Charles Vresilovic asked if there was a cubic feet chart. Richman replied that it was whatever the FAR was times nine allowed on that property. Bill Lipsey, public, said if it was just simplified to measure the lot size to scale the house for just volume somehow. He suggested the example of a 3,000 square foot lot having an allowable cubic feet above grade; it seemed that would simplify the calculations. Mary, public, asked about garages and FAR. Richman reiterated the dialog from that earlier discussion to Mary since she was not present at the meeting at that time of discussion. She said that her house would have more volume than allowed 3 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 13, 2000 because of the plate height of her windows at 11 feet. Sally noted that her house had less floor area than most houses. Glenn Rappaport stated that this was an area where designers needed to provide input for more ideas on the subject. Bill Lipsey stated that simplification was the key to the solution. Roger Hunt stated that the volume limits had to be related to the piece of property along with the plate heights and the box portion or the result would be a box filling up the entire volume. David Guthrie said that in an existing building with a small footprint, there was a tremendous advantage utilizing the basement to gain more volume. He asked that they think about the two-story element from the basement up to the first floor and agreed with the simplification process. Vresilovic stated that he liked David Guthrie's idea because it did not show any exterior mass. Richman noted the current language would not properly accommodate the proper interpretation of the ground level plate height. Joe Wells, public, stated that one of his concerns was that the focus was on one thing and definitions become adopted that effect more than just single-family residences and duplexes. He urged the changes to be kept to single-family and duplexes. Rappaport stated that on the bus tour the comments were that the homes with excessive bulk had to be saved up to the more important spaces which would provide a better hierarchy in the shape making of the building and if translated to multi-family could have a good outcome. Blaich cited the Little Nell rather than North of Nell as a successfully articulated building rather than a box. Denise said that Larry Winnerman suggested using setbacks. She said that if staff could design the house to tell you what you can and can't do then it would eliminate the complicated arbitrariness of one staff member. Richman stated that it was difficult not to say that increasing the setbacks would not increase the plate heights; there would be the need for a more vertical solution. Richman stated that in 1987 the setbacks were increased significantly; the Residential Design Standards dictate that buildings need a street presence, so the front setbacks were already lost. He said the back setbacks were desirable with garages along the alley for access and that leaves the only options of bringing the side setbacks in more, which leaves a "shotgun" house. Rappaport stated that the floor area in town was too big for the allowable height limit; that was the problem, there wasn't enough ground area that could be 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 13, 2000 exposed. He said that no one actually thought that houses would be built to the square foot size limit on a 6,000 square foot lot. Rappaport stated that one of the objections was a very monolithic kind of massing that was going on because of attaining the maximum amount of floor area above ground within the height limit. Larry Winnerman stated that the parameters being set would create the same house that was now created with the maximums utilized. Blaich noted that now the house size was maximized on the lot and the house was being dressed up with every kind of material possible. Blaich stated the quality of creativity was important. Rappaport stated that there was a volume limit on every lot in town between the setbacks and the times of the height, that was a volume. Rappaport said that there was another volume related to the allowable FAR that can occupy anywhere within that volumetric space (setbacks, height). Melanie Roschko, public, said that within the setbacks there were many variances allowed. She said that 2 to 3 feet into a 5 foot setback was a lot and that should be looked into in the future. Richman stated that they were trying to open up the setbacks when 2 houses were built on a single lot for better lot placement of the houses on the entire lot. Changes to Height Regulations Richman stated that height was measured from the natural grade or finished grade, which ever was lower. He said that the next part of the definition for measuring height was to measure the outside perimeter of the building, this language was not precise and could only be administered to the faCade of the building. Sarah Oates said the way that the height was measured did not include the heights that were recessed from the front faCade and/or placed away from the end of the rooflines (Figure 6). Richman stated that Pitkin County and the Town of Snowmass Village measured height not only from the front faCade at grade but also at the roof points. He said to measure through the interior of the building at natural grade would be an administrative nightmare. He said that the changes were an existing grade measurement from any point within the interior of the building or at any point around the perimeter of the building to the highest point or structure within a vertical plane (page 19). Richman stated the height regulation language was being changed to be clear on how to measure the height in the first place. These changes did not remove the incentive for pitched roofs and the calculation section was not being revised.