Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20000725ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 25. 2000 Bob Blaich opened the special meeting at 4:40 p.m. with Commissioners Charles Vresilovic, Roger Haneman, Roger Hunt, Steven Buettow, Ron Erickson, Jasmine Tygre, Tim Mooney and Bob Blaich present. City staff in attendance: Joyce Ohlson, Chris Bendon, Sarah Oates, Fred Jarman, Community Development; Katlu~ Koch, City Clerk. COMMISSIONER. STAFF & PUBLIC COMMENTS Jasmine Tygre inquired about the progress of the ADU follow-up. She said that she thought that an ADU had to be recorded as a deed-restriction on the property even if it wasn't rented out. She noted that "disclosure" of that fact should be accomplished upon the sale of the property but if it was not recorded on the plat, how would anyone know. Joyce Ohlson replied that it should appear on the title research. Sarah Oates stated that building permits were not issued without the deed-restrictions being recorded. Tygre noted that many lodges were being converted into condominiums and questioned why the housing authority has not actively pursued some of these lodges for conversion. She said this type of conversion had to be a lot cheaper than what was being paid for housing people outside of town. Tygre said that if these lodges were going to be converted into housing, these units should be converted into affordable housing instead rather than free-market units, She urged that this opportunity be looked into in depth. Roger Hunt noted that the ads on TV by realtors used the guest apartment as an amenity rather than an ADU. Ron Erickson asked about the realtor signs in the public right-of-way. Sarah Oates responded that enforcement was done on a complaint-generated basis. Erickson asked if a letter could be stated with the rules and directed to the Aspen Board of Realtors. Bob Blaich noted the approval on the Boomerang last night from City Council. He said that the fractional ownership was becoming a problem and that it did not come up before the review with P&Z. Tim Mooney stated that the Patersons did make representations at P&Z that they would not be the ones interested because the operations would be attached to the hotel. Ron Erickson said the L'Aburge cabins were being sold individually with a 6- month rental restriction; he asked how this would be controlled or tracked. Ohlson said that some communities required documentation from an owner that a certain property that has been put to a certain use and that was what Snowmass Village did 1 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 25, 2000 with ADUS. The owner had to show proof through leases and sign an affidavit that the ADU was put into that use for a certain period of time. Ohlson said that the city did not build that into our lodge preservation program but did 6-month lease requirements in our program. Chris Bendon said the 6-month provision was an incentive in the LTR Program and different from the other programs. Sven Alstrom, public, stated that he was on HPC at the time of the L'Aburge review, which included questioning the FAR build out of that property. He said that he believed that the owners of UAbruge did represent the possibility ora sale of the units. Blaich said that his memo was received regarding the Truscott vote and Mayor Richards asked him if they would attend a meeting with City Council, Housing and HPC to review the issues. Blaich explained that the agenda was full for next week and the Mayor asked for the P&Z to possibly reconsider their vote on Truscott. Ohlson said the intent was for Council to hear the P&Z concerns and ideas about making recommendations on the improvements of the development plan. Roger Haneman said that 2 council members shared his concerns on the transportation issues. Tim Mooney said that he hoped that the applicant would be prepared. Kathryn Koch said that it would be the first reading of the Ordinance for City Council. Charles Vresilovic asked if alternatives would be presented to the items that were disagreed upon. Ohlson replied that she was not the applicant and could not answer, but the applicant should be prepared to discuss and address the problems. Vresilovic said that parking issue was a problem not addressed seriously enough to reconsider. Vresilovic said that even to replace some units with parking would be an alternative because parking was an issue and leaving it to management was not the answer. Blaich noted that P&Z provided the issues and felt positive that Council wanted to hear from P&Z. Hunt said he was distressed on the responses from housing on how parking and transportation couldn't be done rather trying to help solve the problems. Ohlson said the key to the meeting was for Council to hear the P&Z concerns and issues clearly. Tygre said that she would like to see possible suggestions for implementation of transit plans that will make this development more attractive for users of public transit. She added that a transit option for this property needed to be provided. 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 25, 2000 Mooney asked to add a possible design ofa 2 level parking structure, which could be added onto in the future. He said there should be a better schedule for the intersection and light. MOTION: Roger Itunt moved to meet with City Council on August 1, 2000 prior to the regular P&Z meeting. Roger Itaneman second. APPROVED 7-0. Chris Bendon provided the schedule of upcoming meetings. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST None. PUBLIC HEARING: TECItNIOUES TO CONTROL HOUSE SIZE. RESOLUTION #42, 2000, Bob Blaich opened the continued public hearing On the techniques to control house sizes. Alan Richman said that there were miscellaneous issues to be addressed beginning on page 29. ~ ADU Richman said one issue was to create an incentive to bring light and air into sub- grade ADUs. Ron Erickson asked why create a solution for something that doesn't work. Erickson said that the ADU program doesn't work so why fine tune it for someone else to get around a new rule in the code; why not just prohibit ADUs below ground level. He said until occupancy can be forced, it won't work and he said just make it mandatory for the developer provide the cash-in-lieu so housing can build above grade. Tim Mooney said the commission was in agreement about the abuse of the ADU program and the developers would continue to gain their square footage and bedrooms through ADUs. Mooney noted that there were a few people that voluntarily do build ADUs that weren't required; he said there was still some spirit in the community to follow the programs. Mooney said that a well lit and used unit below grade would be utilized and he said that this should be included in the code and felt it was a good recommendation. Roger Hunt agreed with Tim that if the ADUs were occupied then it was a plus even if the ADU was sub-grade. He said that making the ADUs work was another - issue to this one. He said he did not want to penalize the sub-grade ADU, he wanted to make the ADU work. 3 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 25, 2000 Jasmine Tygre stated that with the occupancy rate so low on ADUs she said there was no incentive, particularly when this proposal was to reduce house size. She said that 100 feet was not a lot but this encouraged something that did not work to begin with and was not logical for her to understand. Roger Haneman said that he dittoed Jasmine. Blaich said that a number of people never intended to use their ADUs. Mooney said if only one more person would provide an ADU that would help and leave the ADU as voluntary and not required. Mooney said maybe those people should get rewarded who provided ADUs. Blaich noted that there were people who needed the ADU to help pay for their house. The percentage of ADUs rented was under 22%. Ohlson stated that currently there were some floor area exemptions: 50% of the floor area for an ADU for either detached or deed-restricted to mandatory Occupancy; 100% floor area reduction if it were both detached and deed,restricted mandatory occupancy. Lorrie Wirmerman, public, invited the commission to see the inside of some of these buildings. She said that there were so many houses that you could not see the ridge of Aspen Mountain because of the Design Ordinance (the 9' to 12' no windows zone). Winnermann said that there was supposed to be a sunset on the Design Ordinance when it was rewritten. She asked the commission to keep a positive attitude about the ADU program and thought more than 25% were rented; she asked to keep the program going because it was meant as in-fill housing that it was hopeful that it would happen. Lorrie Winnerman said from her letter it was very clear that every time square footage was cut from these tiny lots in town, to remember that was living space for a family that could no longer be utilized. She said that that it now that was living space for the owner and not an ADU that could have been rented. Winnermann said this was from people from the community that she dealt with every day. She asked that the commission think about the ways that people could use their ADUs. She said that one way was to let people use their garages as garages and not count them against the floor area ratio, then people will build the ADUs and rent them to the public if you didn't take ½ of the garage. Sven Alstrom, public, stated that he wanted to compliment Tim for his well-spoken attitude. He said that he lived in attached above grade ADU and suggested that everyone reread the Cottage in-fill Ordinance (in the dead housing replacement Ordinance, 1990). He said the intent of those ordinances was important; circa 1988-90 that if there was a tear down the smaller unit had to be replaced as an 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 25. 2000 ADU. He said people did not like the government telling a person what to do with their property. Alstrom said that almost ½ of his clients do use the ADUs that he designed. Blaich asked staffto find and review the ordinance for P&Z. Glenn Rappaport said that them should not be a distinction between above or below grade ADUs and was micro-managing that doesn't need to be done. Below grade ADUs could benefit from a lot of light in an area where it was more than the minimal egress requirement that could offer more privacy than an above grade ADU. He said the 1980's moat effect began with tapering the ground from the property line. Blaich said that some of the below grade ADUs were like prison cells. Rappaport said that the issue was to make something more livable and not penalize people for living in basements. Mooney said that this was to allow a person to design a better ADU space because of some physical characteristic of their yard or house. He said this was not about philosophy but rather about design. He reiterated that this was to provide an incentive to haVe a better space designed. Jasmine Tygre said that this document was to control house size and this was giving an FAR bonus to something we know doesn't work. Tygre said that it was a design issue and not to give a FAR bonus. Ohlson said that not compromising the ADU program at all was a goal of the February meeting. Joshua Saslove, public, said that if as few as 25% were being used in the city there was some gain; he said that in the county 30% to 40% were being used as homes. Mooney said that a cash-in-lieu program meant it was housing that would be built and that would be used. Saslove said the property owner felt some sense of the destiny of their property if they built the ADU. Susan Hilt, public, stated that in other communities there were requirements on the ADUs for registration of the occupants. Blaich replied that there were many legal issues involved. Steven Buettow said that the livability was already built into the cOde with the light requirement so why give away another I00 square feet for custom guest quarters. Oates said that 100 square feet of additional space for a lighted area was substantial and it was in addition to the required 80 feet of window light required. Sven Alstrom stated that he used a good design to gain more area because it was also above the ground to gain a reward from the HPC on projects. He felt there should be distinctions between above and below grade ADUs. 5 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 25. 2000 Blaich said that straw poll of Commissioners Tygre; Buettow, Haneman, Erickson and Vresilovic removed the entire section on ADU from the resolution; Commissioners Blaich, Mooney and Hunt did not agree on the removal of the section. The commissioners wanted council to be aware of their concerns on the ADU program. Allowable Height Richman said the next topic was Allowable Height, page 30. Richman said that the vast majority of limitation was to 25 feet. for single-family and duplex. He said the Conservation, LTR, CC and C-1 zone districts did have different height limits and the zone districts do not have regulations differentiating between uses when regulating height. Blaich noted that there were private homes that were 40 feet in the C-1 zone district. Richman said the purpose of this section was to keep the commercial or lodge units and encourage the development of in-fill and keep residential at the 25-foot height limitation to support the house size reduction. Sven Alstrom, public, stated the intent was to reduce house size and said that he felt that there was lots of work to do on the regulations; reduction of ridge lines and encourage less Victorian roofs. Alstrom cautioned the height restrictions because solar access was left out and felt the review of solar access easements were essential to determine building heights as well as side yard setbacks. The commission straw vote was all in favor of this section on Allowable Height. Detached Residential Dwellings Richman said that Item "C" Detached Residential Dwellings was part of the in-fill discussion. He said that today residential detached dwellings were only allowed in the CC zone district if they were designated landmark properties. Richman explained that that the C-1 zone district should also be encouraged to head towards commercial and multi-family; a single unit in-fill above a commercial structure would be considered multi-family in the code. Tygre asked for clarification to add an "if" to the language in the C-1 zone district section. The commissioners all agreed on the Detached Residential Dwellings Section. Duplex of Similar Sizes Richman said that the Duplex of Similar Size was to try to balance the unit sizes but then if a smaller unit were left it would at least have a chance to become an affordable unit to someone who lived and worked here. He suggested even one unit at ¼ of the other unit's size. Hunt said that the duplex was two units on one property regardless of size and technically he could argue that an ADU in a residence was a duplex. Ohlson and Richman said that it was not the same; the 6 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 25, 2000 ADU was accessory. Richman said that the duplex was defined as two principal dwelling units and could be condominimized. Haneman said that if we told someone it had to be a larger size wouldn't that reduce the likelihood that it could be bought by someone locally. Richman said that he and staff felt unconformable with one unit being 500 square feet and the other 4,000 square feet, but he understood the point that the smaller the second unit was the more likely that it would be locally owned. Richman said that in the R- 15A duplexes were required which was the converse situation mandated the units to be more livable, because we know that they must be category housing. Tygre said that wouldn't we want to discourage the bonus for the duplex FAR because of the reduction of house size intent. Tygre said part of the duplex definition should include the roughly same size units which would encourage two smaller houses on a duplex lot rather than the "big house and the pimple". Blaich said the only way to limit the size was to reduce the amount of total square footage allowed for the overall duplex. Richman said that would eliminate the advantage of the duplex: Richman said there was difficulty with the FAR bonuses. Tygre said that detached units were different than having two units but they read as one, regardless of whether it was 25%/75% or 50%/50%. Ohlson said that was why the 25% minimum may alloW a designer enough flexibility to separate the massing. Buettow said this could be tied to the secondary mass requirement and have 25% rather than 10% to articulate the big mass. Richman said that would be a possibility to make it clear that the tw° masses were separated along the lines of the units. Blaich said it allowed the designer a more creative solution to the mass- look. The commissioners all agreed on adding this minimum of 25% in principal for one unit and the language will be brought back in the resolution. Sven Alstrom said that he agreed with Steve on the secondary mass and having it written was positive. Building Models Richman said that this came from the site visits because the drawings were not the most accurate representations for what was actually built. He said the concept was that the commission and the public would benefit from more than just the two- dimensional representations. Richman asked for feed-back. Rappaport said that it was important to develop reasonable tools not only for the review boards but also to allow the public to focus their comments more accurately. Erickson said that models were necessary anytime a PUD, a building non-conforming to the code, topographic, conditional use or for any special review. 7 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 25. 2000 Blaich agreed that the model was an important tool for all of the reasons cited. Erickson said there should be a record (photos of the models kept for a later check). The commissioners noted that many of the projects that they felt were not represented properly for the envisioned final product certainly did not get built to the specifications they reviewed. Rappaport said there were many different kinds of models. Ohlson said that maybe Rappaport and some other designers could get together to describe the.property line boundaries of the models. Richman asked if DRAC needed models. Blaich and Buettow stated that in many cases DRAC requested models because the designs were not clear. Alstrom stated that these were good recommendations and specifically say that a computer generated model was not the equivalent and not acceptable. Rappaport said that a model taken to the review proCess helps to focus the comments in a more intelligent way because people do not have to imagine what the project will look like. Richman said that as an example a model wouldn't be needed for a special review for a parking space change. The Lorrie Winnermann letter was discussed regarding window plate heights. Rappaport noted that the plate heights were between 9 feet and 12 feet. Blaich noted that Lorrie suggested a tour. Tygre responded that she felt a tour was a very good idea and the other commissioners agreed. Casey Clarke, public, said that the architects cannot keep up with all of the code changes and it has cost a lot of money and time and she could not submit their plans. She asked how the city would help the architects. Ohlson said that if somebody had worked on a project prior to a code change, that would be taken into consideration upon the review process. Richman said that there was still a period of time after P&Z adopted the new code because it then goes to council for 1~t and 2na readings and public hearings. Blaich noted a hardship case does receive consideration on the review process. Ohlson said P&Z could make a recommendation to council to allow for the effective dates to be submitted. Rappaport said that what may be perceived as the city changing it's mind was actually that the community was becoming uneasy with what was happening and the changes in the rules and regulations were the results of citizen input. MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to table action and continue the public hearing to August 1, 2000. Jasmine Tygre second. APPROVED 7-0. 8 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 25, 2000 MOTION: Roger Haneman moved to reconsider the P&Z action taken on the Truscott Housing Proposal at the August 1, 2000 meeting. Tim Mooney second. APPROVED 7-0. Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Transcribed by Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 9