Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20020305ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes - March 5, 2002 COMMISSIONER, STAFF and PUBLIC COMMENTS ........................................ 2 MINUTES ................................................................................................................. 2 DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ............................................... 2 FORMER "GOLF PRO SHOP" SUBDIVISION, REZONING and PUD AMENDMENT ......................................................................................................... 2 216 East HALLAM REZONING .............................................................................. 4 LITTLE RED SKI HAUS REZONING, LODGE PRESERVATION PUD, GMQS, LP EXEMPTION ................................................................................................ ~ ..... 7 309 North THIRD SPECIAL REVIEW- ADU DESIGN STANDARDS .............. 12 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes - March 5, 2002 Jasmine Tygre, chairperson, opened the regular Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting at 4:30 with Bert Myrin, Eric Cohen, Ron Erickson, Ruth Kruger and Roger Haneman present. Steven Buettow was excused. Staff in · attendance: David Hoe£er, Assistant City Attorney; Amy Gnthrie, James Lindt, Joyce Ohlson, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMISSIONER~ STAFF and PUBLIC COMMENTS Bert Myrin said that Affordable Housing Strategic Plan did not include land costs for some of the city properties; he said that the land values should be added. Joyce Ohlson replied that she would pass the issue onto the responsible person. Ron Erickson reregistered the same complaint on the Caribou Alley open space issue. Erickson noted for the commission that 2nd reading for the Top of Mill was on the 3/11 Council agenda. Jasmine Tygre extended thanks to Chris Bendon for the In-fill work session. Joyce Ohlson said that the Puppy Smith COWOP applicants requested a 6-month extension for the project; they were seeking a "greener" development with CORE. Ohlson stated that there was an application for the Obermeyer In-fill project before council to determine if it should be a COWOP project. Ohlson asked if Roger and Ruth wanted to be part of this process. Ohlson asked if the remote parking follow-up meeting with Tim Ware and Randy Ready could be scheduled for March 12th and fractional ownership on March 26th. Erickson asked when the Bavarian Inn would come back. Ohlson replied that the application had not come into community development yet. MINUTES MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to approve the minutes from 02/05/02 and 02/19/02. Ruth Kruger seconded. APPROVED 6-0. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST None. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (02/05/02): :FORMER "GOLF PRO SHOP" SUBDIVISION~ REZONING and PUD AMENDMENT Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing. David Hoefer stated that the notice was provided on February 5th. 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes - March 5~ 2002 James Lindt said that the application included the sale o£the former golf pro shop and the land beneath it to a non-profit entity; P&Z was the recommending body to City Council. The recreation department requested the rezoning so that Aspen Junior Golf, the intended buyer, could lease out a portion of the space to another non-profit entity that was yet to be determined. Staff felt that the future needs of the community were met. Lindt said that the Growth Management Exemption application was withdrawn because it was not needed for a non-profit entity to take up part of the space. A code amendment was approved by city council several years ago that allowed for private and non-profit entities that provided a community service as a permitted use in the Public Zone District. The applicant has consented to lease out no more than 50% o£the space. Staffproposed conditional approval on the subdivision that the community development director would review any non-profit entity, to ensure that they serve a community interest. Lindt said that the new lot around the existing pro shop would be about 3900 square feet; the voters approved the sell off of the pro shop. Lindt said that the dimensional requirements would be set by the PUD amendment for the newly created lot with no additions to the building. David Hoefer asked James about the renaming of the lots'. Lindt responded that rather than Lot 1 and Lot 6 it would be amended to Lot lA and Lot 1B. Jasmine Tygre asked how the price of Junior Golf was arrived at. Tim Anderson, Recreation Director, replied that it was through negotiations between the City and Junior Golf. Anderson said that the intent was to use the facility for golf intended purposes since it sits out on the golf course. Ron Erickson asked if it would be less expensive for Junior Golf to just lease the facility from the city; that way it would be kept as a city asset. Anderson responded that with the new Pro Shop they needed creative funding and one way was through the sale of the old pro shop. Tygre asked if the tenants of the old pro shop would be required to provide any employee mitigation. Lindt replied that they would not because they were not increasing the net leaseable square footage and it was an existing facility. Alden Richards, Junior Golf Executive Director, said that the Junior Golf has been leasing a space since 1987. Ron Erickson asked where the parking was located. Lindt used a map to show the location and stated that it would be within the shared recreation parking lot. Eric Cohen asked if the subtenant would be a youth orientated program. Lindt replied that it would not have to be youth oriented. Anderson stated that Junior Golf purchased the building for their own use; as a non-profit they operate through annual fund raising and donations. Lindt stated that the Public Zone District 3 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes - March 5, 2002 required that the tenants provide a community service. Cohen asked how the community development director would decide between several applicants. Richards said that there was intent by Junior Hockey to rent out the space in the winter; they shared space that last couple of winters. Lindt noted that it was not a competition between possible tenants, Junior Golf would propose a tenant and the Community Development Director would determine if it provided a community service. Richards said that the soccer program also showed intent. Roger Haneman asked if any other governmental agencies expressed an interest in leasing this space. MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to approve P&Z Resolution//07, series 2002, recommending that City Council approve with conditions the proposed application to subdivide the parcel of land legally described as Lot 1, Aspen Golf Course Subdivision into Lots lA and lB, and rezone the newly created Lot lB to the Public Zone District with a PUD Overlay, and to amend the Truscott the Planned Unit Development to establish the allowable dimensional requirements for newly created Lot lB. Bert Myrin seconded. Roll call vote: Haneman, yes; Cohen, yes; Erickson, yes; Kruger, yes; Myrin, yes; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 6-0. Discussion: Haneman noted that P&Z did not want the restaurant to be a destination restaurant; it was to be strictly secondary. Haneman asked if this would create more traffic by rezoning to public. Kruger said that it was the same space but junior golf would use it in the summer and lease it out in the winter. Haneman said that they could rent ½ the building year round. Lindt stated that they have consented not to lease out more than 50% of the facility. Hoefer said that the traffic generation would be minimal. Lindt stated that community development would review the business license so that it met the community service needs. The commissioners requested that community development look at the traffic generation of the potential applicant. Ohlson noted that the current configuration of the building was retail use and the lower floor was lockers and storage; the main floor would probably be office. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (02/19/02): 216 East HALLAM REZONING Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing for the Mona Frost property located at 216 East Hallam. David Hoefer stated that the legal notice was provided previously; the commission had jurisdiction to proceed. Joyce Ohlson utilized maps to locate the property and the surrounding properties. Ohlson stated that there was a single-family dwelling and a historic barn on the property. The property was split with R-6 and S/C/I Zone Districts. Ohlson said 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes - March 5, 2002 that legal action conveyed the triangular portion o£1and that the barn sits on; it was a legal lot. The alley in place splits the property; the proposal was to rezone the entire property to R-6. Ohlson stated that it made sense to rezone and have the entire property located in one zone district. Ohlson noted that there was a request for the alley vacation from City Council. When an alley vacation is granted 50% o£that land goes to each property. The alley vacation piece o£1and would not allow any increase in the density or FAR. Ohlson stated that the access to the property was currently over city property; they requested to continue to use that access without any further curb cuts. Ohlson stated that any renovation o£the property would be reviewed under the Historic Preservation Committee; currently there was no development plan. Stun Clanson, planner, provided Mona Frost's valued Aspen history. Clanson introduced Camilla Auger, the successor owner o£the Mona Frost Trust. Clanson said that the original house was in the original town site and the barn was bisected by that line and located on property that did not belong to Mona Frost. Clauson noted that a court action corrected this multiple survey error for property ownership. Clanson stated that the zoning was needed to complete making the parcel whole. Amy Guthrie stated that HPC has been concerned about this property; the obstacles of the zone districts and town site line being removed were so that the entire property was zoned the same. Eric Cohen inquired about the property nexi door having the same split-zoning problem; he stated that it would be nice to have that property under one zone district. Ohlson responded that this was the same zoning problem and would have to come from the property owner for the change in zoning. Bert Myrin said that once the alley was vacated and added to the property it would become a 6,000 square foot lot and asked what was to prevent a lot split from HPC. James Lindt stated that it would be eligible for a Historic Lot Split but with a lot line adjustment the FAR from the alley vacation could not be added to the development rights of a parcel. Clauson said that the front property was a separate parcel'from the other side of the un-vacated alley. Clauson said that state statutes were very clear that an un-vacated alley separates these parcels, so the parcel have never been merged; he said that no lot split was necessary to consider these two separate parcels. Clauson said with respect to the front the Historic Preservation Lot Split presently was not available to for parcels less than 6,000 square feet. Camilla Auger stated that them was no intension at this time. Clauson said that 5 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes - March 5, 2002 there was no particular plan for a lot split. Ohlson restated that the additional land that was gained by the vacation of that alley with 50% going to each lot did not give them additional development rights for density or for the FAR allowable. Ohlson said that this was just shy of 6,000 square feet and that alley vacation or any other easement would not provide that allowable density. Density was the number of units; floor area was the size and neither dimensional standard could be increased. Myrin asked about the property ownership under the barn. Ohlson replied that it was addressed; the ownership had been settled by adverse possession, which went through the court. Myrin asked what the benefits were for the city with the alley vacation. David Hoefer responded that it becomes a taxable piece of property and eliminates liability. Garret Brandt, attorney for the current owner, stated that there was a state law that read when a public alleyway no longer serves anything that it has to be vacated. Brandt stated that the city did not have much discretion in this. Roger Haneman asked about the Lot G access. Auger replied that the city attorney no longer had that concern because the ultimate development would be overseen by HPC. Auger stated that it would be detrimental to the Historic Preservation of the project to have another curb cut. Ruth Kruger asked if there was any downside to the rezoning of this property. Ohlson replied that there really was not; the barn could be possibly converted into a residential unit but it had to remain historic. Ohlson noted that the 2 structures that were on the historic inventory would be reclaimed and renovated. No public comments. Myrin asked if the row of lilacs on the west side of Sheely Boulevard at the Red Brick would be moved. Ohlson noted that Parks had a similar concern. MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to approve P&Z Resolution #08, series 2002, recommending City Council approve this rezoning request for a property located at 216 East Hallam Street, City and Townsite, City of Aspen, Colorado (parcel #2737-073-14-001). Ron Erickson seconded. Roll call vote: Myrin, yes; Haneman, yes; Cohen, yes; Erickson, yes; Kruger, yes; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 6-0. Ron Erickson asked to add a recommendation to city council beyond this recommendation that the adjacent property have action taken to clean up the townsite lot lines. Erickson noted the importance of removing properties from the S/C/I zones that did not belong in it, which would be a separate motion. 6 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes - March 5, 2002 MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to request that staff recommend City Council to look into rezoning the adjacent lot east of 216 East Hallam. Myrin seconded. APPROVED 6-0. PUBLIC HEARING: LITTLE RED SKI HAUS REZONING? LODGE PRESERVATION PUD, GMQS~ LP EXEMPTION Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing and requested notice. David Hoefer stated that the notice had been provided and met the jurisdictional requirements. James Lindt stated that the Little Red Ski Haus LLC was the applicant. The request was to rezone and expand the Little Red Ski Haus Lodge located at 118 East Cooper Avenue. There were 3 separate land use actions: (1) rezone, (2) lodge preservation and minor lodge preservation PUD to expand by about 520 square feet of FAR and vary the underlying residential setbacks and (3) the GMQS Lodge Preservation Exemption to allow the number oftodge units to be reduced from 22 to 14 units. Lindt noted that the land use code required the Planning & Zoning Commission make a recommendation to City Council in both the rezoning and the PUD. Lindt provided the history of the lodge built originally in 1888 and historically designated as a landmark; it has existed as a lodge for about 40 years, prior to 1999 when it was converted to a single family residence. In November 2001 City Council granted a temporary use permit for it operate as a lodge. Lindt utilized a map to locate the areas of proposed remodel and removal of a carport and rebuild as a 3-car carport with an addition on top of it. Also there would be excavation of the basement for about 980 square feet to be utilized as an accessory dining area. The interior of the lodge would be reconfigured from 22 dorm style units to 14 traditional units, which would include a bath in each unit but no kitchens in units. Lindt said staff felt that the rezoning was compatible with the surrounding area and lodge use. The Snow Queen Lodge was located to the east, which has been operating as a lodge in this zone district. Lindt said that staff felt that the applicant met all the criteria; there were 3 parking spaces proposed. HPC has granted conceptual approval for the additions and setbacks as proposed. Lindt noted the main issue in re-development was the lack of on-site parking; currently they only have 1 parking space for the 22 lodge rooms. They proposed 3 spaces for the reduced number of lodge rooms (14); the parking deficit from the land use code was reduced to about 6 from the previous 15 space-parking deficit. Staff felt there was sufficient parking on site because the lodge preservation program allowed them to maintain an existing deficit. 7 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes - March 5~ 2002 Lindt said that Staff recommended that no employee mitigation be required for the GMQS for Lodge Preservation because they reduced the number of lodge rooms from 22 to 14. The Housing Authority reviewed the proposed application and recommended that no employee mitigation be required because of the reduction. Lindt stated that staffhad issues with a wrought iron fence that encroached into the East Cooper Avenue right-of-way. Lindt said that Engineering requested that it be removed as part of the PUD application; staff felt that it was flush with the fence next door (Snow Queen) so that brought continuity to the streetscape. Lindt said that the applicant needed to obtain an encroachment license from the City of Aspen Engineering Department rather than removing it and bringing it back to the property lines. Lindt stated that the proposed dining facility had to be an accessory use to the lodge facility otherwise it would have to go through P&Z for a conditional use for it to be a commercial restaurant. Staff proposed a condition that the restaurant advertising not be independent of the lodge use. Lindt said that the application met the criteria for a minor PUD, rezoning to the Lodge Preservation overlay zone district and recommends P&Z forward a recommendation for approval to city council. Staff also recommended P&Z approve the proposed GroWth Management Quota System requiring no allotments because of the reduction in rooms. Lindt introduced David Fiore from Little Red Ski Haus LLC, part of a 6-member team, Carl Darr the architect and Mike Letereno parmer. David Fiore explained his goals and objectives and how they have evolved from a planning standpoint. Fiore stated that his dialog with Marge Babbock began about a year ago on the prospect of purchasing and running the lodge. Fiore said that they wanted to retain the old character of the lodge but replace old sections to be more functional and maintain lodge space in the city. Fiore explained that the goal was to make this successful; they were repositioning and adding bathrooms, the lodge would be sprinkled, the lodge would be brought up to ADA codes without the accessibility issues. He said that the staffing requirements were reduced and they were fully staffed with the 2 hosts and his mother Beverly Fiore a managing partner for this small quaint boutique lodge. Fiore stated that he wanted to be part of the community and the timing of opening the lodge for next winter. Fiore stated that they would comply with the 21 points raised by staff. Fiore stated that in condition #14 it was stated that a no parking sign would be placed; he requested that the sign be eliminated and landscaping be 8 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes - March 5, 2002 placed to achieve the same result. Fiore said the fence was important to keep; they used landscaping with the ADA accessibility. Roger Haneman asked the current number of bathrooms. Fiore replied that there were currently 12 bathrooms. Haneman asked sta£fabout the addition that may have been placed on the rear of the building to house employees when Ralph Melville was on city council about 25 years ago. Lindt stated that the applicant had originally proposed 1 on-site staff unit and 13 lodge units; the housing referral required a kitchen and expansion o£ that unit to 400 square feet, staff gave the applicant the choice to do what the housing referral requested or go to 14 lodge units. Haneman asked if staff was completely confident that nothing was encumbering this property with regards to the employee unit. Lindt replied that he was not completely confident in that but sta££ did not find anything on it. That was prior to deed-restrictions. Fiore said that there was nothing within the deed regarding that. Fiore said that there was a reduction o£rooms to 14 and that a host and hostess managed most bed and breakfasts. Myrin asked about the lighting. Lindt replied that all lighting had to be by code. Myrin said that much of the review was under Lodge Preservation; he asked if down the road the lodge was turned into a single-family residencel Lindt replied that there would have to be a change in use because it was a historic landmark, but there was no caveat to change it to a single-family residence but there was also no assurance that it would be a lodge till the end of time. Fiore responded that in the purchase contract there was an obligation to Marge to run this as a lodge; stated that they wanted to be here for the long term. Fiore stated that the ADA stairwells were counted against the FAR. Ron Erickson asked if the restaurant would be offered as part of an American Plan. Fiore responded that it was a dining facility for the guests as a bed and breakfast. Fiore said that currently they could not serve a full breakfast because of the kitchen; the remodel would be equipped with a kitchen. Eric Cohen asked about the dimensional requirements with the existing FAR at 5517 square feet and what was the proposed. Lindt stated that the proposed 6035 square feet did not include the basement space. Lindt stated that the existing was currently non-conforming in terms of FAR because the RMF Zone District did not allow lodges; the reason that they were able to operate as a lodge was because City Council granted them a Temporary Use. The RMF Zone District does not set dimensional requirements for a lodge, only single-family, duplex and multi-family residences. Cohen asked if the host and hostess would be housed on the property; he asked if they would occupy 1 of the 14 rooms. Fiore replied that the host and 9 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes - March 5, 2002 hostess lived on site in one of the rooms and would occupy one of the new 14 rooms; he stated that to stay here was to succeed. Rita Rasmussen, public, 109 East Hyman, stated that her residence was directly behind the Little Red Ski Haus and provided pictures of the building. Rasmussen said that she has been a neighbor since the summer of 1992; she said that she did not have an issue with it being a lodge and was in favor of the remodel but had an issue with an addition on the north of the building because that faced her living room. Rasmussen said that the building was already large and they were asking for a variance. She said that the Snow Queen was the only lodge around; she lived in a duplex with duplexes in the area. Rasmussen stated that this addition would affect the quality of life of those neighbors around it; she said they could make a nice lodge out of the structure that was already there. Rasmussen stated that the builder of the East Hyman Townhomes went through a lot of expense to make the alley look better. She said that the hot tubs would affect the privacy and noise level. Rasmussen asked if they got a variance why others couldn't get variances to add on and build to the alley. Rasmussen voiced concern if this restaurant became a commercial restaurant. Rasmussen also was concerned about adding more lighting to the back because that was her bedroom; she asked the height of the floors. Marsha Goshorn, public, stated that she Was a 26 year resident and realized that this was a non-conforming use but the lodge had an over 40 year history; this was not a new use for this location. Goshorn stated that the new uses were all of the homes that replaced the duplexes and everything else; she noted that this was the tourist-based economy of town. Goshom said that this lodge would be changed into fewer rooms but a lot more amenities for guests; she said that in her work in reservations people still call for the Little Red Ski Haus because it was part of the history of this town. Charles Dalton, public, 107 East Hyman, stated that he agreed with Rita; he said redoing the lodge was a great idea and the reduction of rooms. Dalton expressed concern for the back addition toward his duplex with the addition of rooms, which would block his view. He said that he bought his place because of the views and voiced concern of the resale value. Raife Bass, representative for 123 East Hyman, the Warren Family, stated that the improvement to the lodge was positive but the disagreeable part was the massing addition to the back of the lodge. Bass stated that this addition affected 4 people's living rooms. Bass said that it was not only adding mass to a building but to a building that was already over the FAR and was a non-conforming structure. Bass 10 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes - March 5, 2002 spoke of the concern for the Jacuzzi placement because of the living areas that would be affected. Jasmine Tygre asked how the non-conforming structure could be increased in the size with that the non-conformity in the LP Overlay. Lindt replied that was because it was in the Lodge preservation PUD and that was where the dimensional requirements were set. Eric Cohen asked the height of the current peak and proposed peak of the roof. Carl Darr replied that it was 25 feet to the peak now and did not change. Roger Haneman asked which was more desirable with the units being stacked rather than by side by side across the back with the hot on top of them. Fiore replied that there was a shanty in the back that would be removed and improved. Fiore said that the sight lines wOUld not be taken away; that 25-foot height limitation remained with the setbacks. Fiore stated that they had the same concerns about the hot tub that any neighbor would have because it was adjacent to one of the rooms; strict hours would be established so it would not disturb the guests either. Carl Darr stated that if the units were side by side it would create a virtual wall for the neighboring buildings; he said that the 3rd floor triangulation would cut offa small view of Aspen Mountain. Darr said that the addition was a small portion of the back of the building; the buildings across the alley had windows that focused at a slight angle offto the side. The back addition was about 16-feet across and was 2feet 4 inches from the property line; the current carport, which will be removed, encroached over the property line. Hoefer noted that the variance was not part of the issue; it was part of the PUD and will go to HPC for final design. Council will make the final decision on the dimensional requirements. Erickson noted that this was What the Lodge Preservation Program was all about; this was the type of lodge the program was meant to save. Kruger, Haneman and Cohen had no problem with the rezoning either. Myrin reiterated concern for the possibility of the property reverting to single-family dwelling because there were no guarantees. Tygre noted that some change in uses have brought about certain approvals that may not have been what the intent of the approval was from P&Z. Tygre stated that she shared Myrin's concerns but agreed with the rest of the commission, particularly for this lodge, with the historic architecture and use; she said that she would take a leap of faith on the rezoning. There was discussion of the GMQS exemptions with only one commissioner's concern for the future. The minor PUD discussion included the view Planes having no guarantees; HPC would have the final review; the height was not being raised; the additional square footage; the reduction of employees and the 11 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes - March 5, 2002 neighbor's concerns. Fiore stated that they would work with HPC. Kruger noted that there needed to be the minor PUD approval to go forward with the HPC review. Hoefer noted that many of the P&Z concerns and neighbor's concerns were also HPC concerns. MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to extend the meeting by 15 minutes. Bert Myrin seconded. APPROVED 6-0. Myrin asked if the square footage could be modified in the addition. Fiore replied that reduced square footage would not work because the parking would be eliminated; plus the square footage was essential to the lodge preservation. The additional square footage was 330 square feet. Lindt noted that the plan could not be modified because it was a site-specific plan. Hoefer stated that a second motion to city council could request a reduction in the square footage. MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to approve P&Z Resolution#09, series 2002, recommending City Council approve the proposed rezonlng to RMF with a PUD and LP Overlay, a minor PUD, and a GMQS exemption for lodge preservation with the conditions set in the resolution. Ron Erickson seconded. Roll call vote: EricksOn, yes; Kruger, yes; Haneman, no; Cohen, yes; Myrin, yes; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 5-1. The commission requested that staff extend the concerns of P&Z and the neighbors to HPC. MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to extend the meeting by another 15 minutes. Roger Haneman seconded. APPROVED 5-0. PUBLIC HEARING: 309 North THIRD SPECIAL REVIEW- ADU DESIGN STANDARDS Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing. David Hoefer stated that the notice was provided. Ruth Kruger excused herself at 7:20 p.m. James Lindt eXplained that the application submitted by Mel and Marilyn Gallant and represented by Earl Anderson, architect, requested a special review variance for the Residential Design Standards for construction of a sub-grade and attached ADU. City Council approved an amendment to the code that all ADU's be placed above grade and detached from the main residence unless special review approval was obtained. Lindt said that the single-family residence would be reconstructed and a 603 square foot sub-grade ADU would be on a 3,000 square foot lot in the R-6 zone district. The lot was 50 feet by 60 feet. Lindt said that the compact building 12 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes - March 5, 2002 setback areas made it very difficult to construct an above grade ADU given the site; staff felt that the below grade unit would be more livable based upon the square footage. Earl Anderson stated that the existing house was 976 square feet built in the mid 1950's and was currently a non-conforming structure with 200 square feet outside the setbacks and the winged roof was outside the property line. Anderson said the area within the setbacks Was 1400 square feet with an allowable FAR of 2400 square feet, which tells you that there will be a 2-story structure. Anderson stated that the design process for this home has been 2 years now; the owners would like to build a new home in conformity with and give back to the city an ADU (mandatory occupancy). Anderson explained that this was an architects dream; he said that he went to Aspen High School and to have a client that actually wants tO provide an ADU for someone was good. Anderson stated that the parking for this home would be placed in the back according to the Design Review Standards, which gave on street parking back to the city and provided an ADU. Anderson said that the ADU was 603 square feet with it's own laundry room, kitchen and 10% storage with it's own private entrance and not accessible from the main residence. Anderson said it was almost literally impossible to build the ADU above grade because of the required setbacks. The garage was a tandem garage now and if the ADU were above it would be very small and would need a variance from the setback requirements. Anderson said the main house first floor would be 750 square feet in that instance and would not be acceptable to anyone. Anderson stated that staff and the Housing Board approved the application for the proposed ADU below grade and felt it was better than a much smaller above grade unit. Ron Erickson explained the current ADU rules being above grade and detached; this was below grade. Erickson asked about if the applicant lOoked at an above grade attached ADU. Anderson replied that it took away from the owners' livability above grade and they believe that an above grade ADU would have such a reduction in size that it would not be a livable ADU. James Lindt stated that there was no longer a mandatory occupancy deed-restriction option available. MOTION: Roger Haneman moved to extend the meeting another 10 minutes. Ron Erickson seconded. APPROVED 5-0. Roger Haneman said that the first time that this property came in from of P&Z was for variance setbacks from the Residential Design Standards for secondary mass. Lindt responded that the secondary mass was approved on this design but the setback variance was denied. Anderson answered that they were trying to bring the house closer to the street, which was how the design Standards read but it was 13 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes - March 5, 2002 denied. Anderson said that the project was put on hold until this past December and so if the ADU standards had not changed they would not have had to be in front of P&Z but would be in the building department with permits. Myrin asked if it would be possible for the ADU to be the first floor and the owners occupy the basement level. Lindt responded that there would be issues of access from the second floor to the basement level through the first floor and could be over the allowable $00 square foot limit for an ADU. Anderson stated that Mel and Marilyn would be living here permanently. Jasmine Tygre stated that given the constraints of this particular site and to fit a livable house and an ADU; she asked why the applicant did not consider other options. Tygre said that there were 5 options for employee mitigation: buy down, buying an off site unit, paying the cash-in-lieu, or a recorded deed restriction occupancy on the main residence. Lindt explained that an RO deed-restriction would be on the single-family residence. Anderson responded that the cash buy downs would be a financial burden on the owners; they were selling 2 properties to build this structure. Mel Gallant stated that if they did not have the income from the ADU they would not be able to do the remodel. Marilyn Gallant said that they wanted to provide the ADU and be part of the community and contribute to the community. Marilyn Gallant stated that the other options would not work for them and that was the reason for this proposal. No public comments. MOTION: Roger moved to extend the meeting another 5 minutes. Ron Erickson seconded. APPROVED 5-0. MOTION: Eric Cohen moved to approve P&Z Resolution #10, series 2002, approving a special review application to vary the ADU design standards to allow for a subgrade and attached ADU at 309 North Third Street finding that the review criteria have been met. Bert Myrin seconded. Roll call vote: Myrin, yes; Erickson, no; Cohen, yes; Haneman, yes; Tygre, no. APPROVED 3-2. Discussion: Cohen stated that his past experience with subgrade has been unlivable and this unit was very livable with the design and square footage. Cohen said that the 4 other options did not make sense and felt it was a positive application. Haneman stated that he agreed with Eric because that they were left with the setbacks and that they wanted to rent the ADU. 14 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes - March 5, 2002 Myrin agreed that the 3000 square foot lot did limit the building space. He agreed with Jasmine on the RO description as a solution for mitigation. Myrin said that the size of the house would encourage another owner to live in it and encourage the applicant. Erickson stated that his objection toward subterranean ADUs was well known; he said that one of the options that had not been discussed was to leave the house as it was. Erickson noted that changes that were made were made in perpetuity; he sated that he worked too hard to get the legislation passed against underground ADUs. Erickson stated that he could not support this ADU request. Tygre stated that she had to agree with Ron and this application troubled her very much. Tygre stated that they were required to judge an application judged on it's merits not on the applicant's merits; she stated that she felt sympathetic to these' people with the best possible intensions. Tygre said that the P&Z commission worked very hard on the ADU program and the requirements had to be fulfilled as to the current design standards. Tygre noted that the lot was very constrained but she felt there were other options. Tygre stated that she could not vote in favor of the proposal. Cohen said that the laundry rOoTM and size made the difference for him to approve the proposal. Myrin stated that by re-building this residence would extend the life of this property by at least 30 years. Marilyn Gallant stated that they felt that they would be improving the neighborhood because this house was such an eye sore as it existed; she said that by not having the ADU they would not be able to build the new house. Anderson stated that the house as it stands was on a foundation without footers with 2 by 6 joists and no crawl space and was seriously out of code with only 900 square feet. Meeting adjourned at 7:55 p.m. J~t~ie-Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 15