Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19950822 AGE N D A ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING August 22, 1995, Tuesday 4:30 P.M. 2nd Floor Meeting Room city Hall ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ I. COMMENTS Commissioners Planning Staff Public II . MINUTES III. JOINT WORK SESSION WITH HPC A. 500 W. Bleeker Landmark Designation, Conceptual Review and Conditional Use Review, Amy Amidon IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Snowbunny Conditional Use Review for an Accessory Dwelling Unit, Dave Michaelson B. Vickery Code Amendments, Mary Lackner (continued from August 8) V. WORK SESSIONS A. Ordinance 30, Leslie Lamont VI. ADJOURN MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Administrative Assistant RE: Upcoming Agendas DATE: August 22, 1995 Regular Meeting - September 5 525 W. Hallam Landmark Designation (AA) Alpine Lodge GMQS Exemption (DM) AH/RO Discussion - TDR to Non -Contiguous Parcels (LL) Regular Meeting - September 19 Water Place Affordable Housing Work Session (DM) Independence Place SPA Designation & Conceptual SPA Plan (LL) Marolt Housing PUD Amendment (DM) a.nex MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director FROM: Dave Michaelson, Planner RE: Snowbunny Equity Ventures, LLC Conditional Use Review For an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) - Public Hearing DATE: August 22, 1995 SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting conditional use approval to construct a 640 square feet ADU within a new duplex on the parcel. The ADU is proposed below -grade, and does not qualify for FAR bonus. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use for an accessory dwelling unit with conditions. APPLICANT% Snowbunny Equity Ventures, LLC represented by Jan Derrington, Project Architect LOCATION: 1225 Snowbunny Lane (Lot 7, Block 1 Snowbunny Subdivision ZONING: R-15 LOT SIZE: 16,750 s.f. FAR: Allowed = 5,025 s.f. Proposed = 5,015 s.f. BACKGROUND: At a pre -application conference, staff voiced concerns that the initial orientation of the structure was not consistent with the Design Standards of Ordinance 30. On July 27, 1995, the applicant requested a variation from the Design Review Appeals Board (DRAB) from the building orientation standard due to site constraints. The design standard states that "the orientation of the principal mass of all buildings must be parallel to the streets they face. On curvilinear streets, the principle mass of all buildings must be tangent to the midpoint of the arc." The request to allow for a variance to the orientation requirement was denied by the Design Review Appeals Board (DRAB), and the applicant has reoriented the structure to conform the cited design standard. A vicinity map (Exhibit A), site plan (See Exhibit B), elevations (Exhibit C) and floor plan (Exhibit D) are attached. REFERRAL COMMENTS: Please see comments from the Parks Department, the Housing Office, and the Engineering Department ( See Exhibit E) . Parks Department: Parks requested that if the lilac hedge is located in the public right-of-way, the majority of the hedge should remain. Planning staff notes that the applicant has represented that all existing vegetation along Snowbunny Lane will remain, and additional plantings shall be used to revegetate the abandoned accessway (staff will have a landscaping plan available at the hearing). Engineering Department: Engineering has concerns regarding the appropriateness regarding additional duplex units on Snowbunny Lane. Staff notes that a duplex is allowed by right in the R- 15 zone district. Comments regarding two curb cuts are no longer applicable based on revision eliminating one existing cut. Engineering also requested a five (5) foot pedestrian usable space be included on the final development plan, and noted that the city's storm drainage system is inadequate and historic flows must not be exceeded on the site. Housing Office: Housing requested that an alternative access be provided to the mechanical and storage room. Planning staff would suggest that the elimination of the access from the ADU to the staircase would create a totally private unit (see note on Exhibit D) . A kitchen has been included in the revised site plan. STAFF COMMENTS: Conditional Use Review - Pursuant to Section 24-7-304, the criteria for a conditional use review are as follows: A. The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and standards of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, and with the intent of the Zone District in which it is purposed to be located; RESPONSE: The applicant's intend on demolishing an existing single -story home, and constructing a duplex with an ADU in the garden level of Unit 1 (see Exhibit D). The ADU, as depicted, exceeds the minimum net livable requirement of 300 square feet. The unit must comply with the Housing Guidelines and shall be deed restricted as a resident occupied unit for working residents of Pitkin County. B. The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and surrounding land uses, or enhances the mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development; 2 RESPONSE: Nearly 50% of the units in the Snowbunny Lane area are duplexes, which is permitted as of right in the R-15 zone district. The ADU "replaces" a single bedroom in Unit 1. C. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed conditional use minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properties; RESPONSE: The ADU is accessed from a covered, descending stairwell located at the west side of Unit 1. Impacts to public services are identical to the development of a duplex. Each unit has a double -garage located between the units, accessed from Snowbunny Lane by an existing circular drive with two curb cuts. The applicants intend on simplifying access by abandoning the west access point, and using the remaining single curb cut to access the site. The abandoned access would be revegetated with a lilac hedge, similar to the existing lilacs that front Snowbunny Lane. Based on the landscape plan, several (5) spruce and cedar trees exceeding 6" in caliper will be removed to accommodate the duplex. Consistent with comments from the Parks Department, the existing hedges and vegetation located within the public right-of-way will remain. D. There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the conditional use including but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection, emergency medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems, and schools; RESPONSE: No additional infrastructure is required for the ADU. A duplex is considered a use by right in the R-15 zone district, and approximately 50% of the neighborhood is occupied by duplex units. THe ADU "replaces" a- bedroom in a portion of the unit 1. Parking may be constrained, however staff has found this not to be incompliance with the Code as the ADU represents one bedroom within a two -bedroom duplex complete with a two -car garage. Section 24- 5-510 (A) (1) specifically exempts one -bedroom units from parking requirements. No additional trash/storage or utility areas have been identified by the applicant. E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need for increased employees generated by the conditional use; RESPONSE: Not Applicable. F. The proposed conditional use complies with all additional standards imposed on it by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and by all other applicable requirements of this chapter. 3 RESPONSE: The dwelling unit must be deed restricted for residential occupancy, and provides an additional unit for working residents of Pitkin County. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Planning Staff recommends approval of the ADU with the following conditions: 1. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall comply with the following: A. The owner shall submit the appropriate deed restriction to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Office for approval. Upon approval of the deed restriction by the Housing Office, the applicant shall record the deed restriction with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorders office with proof of recordation to the Planning Department. The deed restriction shall state that the accessory unit meets the housing guidelines for such units, meets the definition of Resident Occupied Unit, and if rented, shall be rented for periods of six months or longer; and B . Kitchen plans shall be verified by the Housing Of f ice to ensure compliance with specifications for kitchens in ADUs. 2. The ADU shall be clearly identified as a separate dwelling Unit on building permit plans and shall comply with U.B.C. 35 sound attenuation requirements. 3. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the Planning Department shall inspect the unit to ensure compliance with the conditions of approval. 4. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, a drainage plan shall be submitted that confirms historic runoff shall be maintained on the site. In addition, the applicant shall identify any additional trash/storage, recycling and utility areas on the site. 5. All new surface utility needs and pedestals must be installed on -site. 6. The applicant shall consult the City Engineer for design considerations of development within public rights -of -way, and the Parks Department for vegetation species, and shall obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within public rights -of -way from the City Streets Department. 7. The internal access to the ADU from the ascending staircase shall be eliminating consistent with the requirements of the Housing Office regarding total privacy of ADUs. 4 8. The western access point on Snowbunny Lane shall be eliminated, and shall be revegetated as represented on the landscape plan. 9. A f ive (5) foot pedestrian usable space shall be shown on the Final Development Plan. 10. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, a tree removal and mitigation plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Parks Department. Tree removal permits shall be required for the removal or relocation of any tree greater than 6" caliper. 11. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the conditional use at 1225 Snowbunny Lane with the conditions as outlined in the Planning Office Memo dated August 22, 1995. Exhibits: "A" - Vicinity Map "B" - Proposed Site Plan "C" - Elevations "D" - Floor Plan "E" - Referral Comments 5 J�l alit_ Az iF -..E*xh-i-bit A or R t AD MAGMIFI 14 10 to x, Z < 771 44 'Jit b SHEET 4. AOU -OJ ITE. —PRI 4.4 10 '17 91 77�, �. LO Fkllr- ESIA0A 0 Ir- op C13 vr '6 cl I t C�5 F ?U v IG oot ;W, 41 EEI M� Exhibit B 9LOS-9Z6/OL6 :XYJ 0699-SZ6/OL6 -IM LL9QL 00 'N3dSV ., Lor 3.unS '-3" NVY w 1Sv3 OZS S,LO3,LIHO2IY .TidimN!]O S,779YHO 00 'N3dSV N04SLN08nS J.NNn8MONS L H0018 'L 101 X37dDQ AVjVD6dONS ll� � �n F o Ln m a � t m m 1711 Noma L�� 9L0S-SZ6/OL6 :XVj 06SS-SZ6/01.6 -M t199t 00 'N3dS1 ., t0s minx " 3Av Nvr" 1SV3 0ZS SS33,LIH02�' 3.d dINN40 S379YHO t �Al tL in 0 1 N N � N 1 O m Z m r O 00 'N3dSV Naswasm ANNnamoNS t X0019 'L 101 X37d.nQ ANNnBitONS W 1 �- 9L09-SZ6/9L6 :xvj 069C-CZ6/0L6 '131 i199L 00 'N3dSV .� ioz 3.uns '-mv r+vnau 1sY? oZS FAMO S.'.:,3�:Ifi.?NY .Ss�,�'IxNlJ:� S31Nrt1� .r J r (L t� 00 'N3dSY w,x- N im L4Hne#&4s l X00'18 'L 101 X37dDC ,issnEmoss tL. 8 J z 0 w f 9LOS—SZ6/OL6 :XYJ 069V—(;Z6/OL6 -131 tt991 OO 'N3dSV . t0£ UnS "3" NVVUH LSV3 ON S.L�3.LIH�2Td 3.YdlMNDD 9379VH.) I I I f I i I I I r -- OO 'N3dSV NOISlN08f15 ANNnSMONS t XDO-M 'L 101 o � �n ^ P ; O n Z m � x37dna AjVNDGMOIVS NMI 909-SZ6/01.6 :XV! 0699-SZ6/OL6 --M I1991 00 'N3dS/ tot 311ns "3nv NyAm LSY3 OZS S.LO3LIHO2li' .7jilNNDJ E3721YHO 00 'N3dSV NOIsvicam mNnamoNs 1 X0019 'L 101 X37dD(7 ANNnffAONS r-----------------� I I � I I�• I ti n O° o � rn o tD z uj 0 0 I I I I i I I I I _J N _ r 9L0S-SZ6/016 :XV! 06SS-SZ6/OL6 00 'N3dSV t 1991 00 'N3dSV NOISW08f1S ANNnGAON5 MI IOC 31ins "3A`I WKMH 1SY3 ON ) X001t3 'L 101 -0 w o � R NI w � o to z W m r 0 SIXILIHOYY .7,dddINN1Ij S97YYH-) X37dDa AJVND9AONS oaa as aaa aW Q V) in W V) V) V) V) V) to V) V) I-T O O V) O V) O V) V) O O In t� Q! t0 1, Q7 � t0 1, Ln 't I —. -- .— — .— '— — — .— I O) ID 00 00 M o) n to In r- t'41 C,41 0 i I ;Z N N I •� 11 p II N N Q o 0 1 uq 0 W W O clq W I( 1 W � L~i {/) CL IA I V NI J II II II O it it II QO p II r I pn c�q IQ WV)N JWOL WLnN JWo W r Q I U W< d W>< W Q Q W W Q N 0LAJ E")' z J Z W Z z m L� i >> Q W> >> Q W> O 4 Q Z J 0 0 (L _J J N Z J 0 0 CL J J J O D I ILL 00 or Q .J I i W I W o I I ------------- ----- — ---------- ; II I Z 00 I zw� 0m zzx U C 53A13H5 i -- HS .J I T� m On �N J I 1 O CL" o l a I z� � Ow I I I - I IV � I � I I o O O. 06 I z 00 W �- 9x - I El = Cox u4 Cox I Ux ' ?h Z;n i QQ )—;n i z- > 1 Y- 1 0 J g 1 1 ' I 1 1 1 1 1 I p z(C QnZ) 3 I L)o- io — — -------J N� W W u3O zix On rV^ D 9LOS-SZ6/OL6 :XU 06SS-SZ6/OL6 "ill 11991 00 'N3dSY for 3Dns 'and hVKAA 1Sv3 ON S.LO3,LIHOiIY 3.�.�IXNl1O S3721YHO 00 'N3dSY NOISWOSM ANNOWNS 1 X00'19 'L 101 X37dD U AX M EM ONS n Cm 0 1 O Ob F76 z m 0 0 9LOS-SZ6/OL6 XY! 069S-SZ6/01.6 131 11991 00 'N3dSV ., IOC 311RS "3nv NV► kH 1SV3 ON S.LO,?.LIHDUd J'dYlNNI20 937YYH0 00 'N3dSY NOISWO13nS MNnSMONS t M0018 'L 101 X37dDQ .{NNIlgAONS N n Ch Q i �A A I d 2 m � O a oibl1 op.., =){ 0 q 910S-SZ6/OL6 :XY3 06SS-SZ6/016 '131 tt99t 00 'N3dSV tOt Minn ' 3AY NV► kH 1SV3 OZS t S f S.LO3.LIHO�Id 3.�,�IXNll,7 S3'IiIT�HO 00 'N3dSY NO(SWOMS ANNnaWNS t X00.18 'L 101 n O/ o � o a � O� m X37dD0 ANN17 AONS r- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -i I I IW �!llr 9LOS—SZ6/OL6 :XY! 06SS—SZ6/OL6 -131 11991 00 'N3d5V 00 'N3dSY NOISWOBt1S .WNnSMONS . 1OC IMS "3AY NVM44 1Sd3 ON t Noole 'L 101 k S,LO.YJIHDNY VdJIVVDD SO-MYHO X37dDO ANNINAONS n � o � N O e F7z— Lm G Z 4`11 CL L II 00 0 \ w . 9LOS-SZ6/OL6 :XYJ 06SS-SZ6/OL6 --131 Lt99t 00 'N3dv tOf 31UtS "3AY NVYUH 1SV3 OZS 00 'N3dSY NOISINOWIS ANNna%ONS t k0019 'L 101 S,L03,LIHDYY JW-W1NN110 9379YH0 X37dl7U ASNDGAONS n � P o � PQ ' Z � m H 0 0 Z o C LL. rr 0 \ W AUG 14 '95 10:44AM ASPEN HOUSING OFC P.I Exhibit E 1KEKOUX TO: Dave Michaelson, Planner vtm Cinder Christensen, liousirig Office DATE: August 14, 1995 RX : Snowbunny Conditional V%e Review for an Accessory Dwelling trnit Parcel ID No. 2735-122-08-014 The size of the accessory Unit falls wlthizi the guidelines of the Code: Accessory dwelling units shall contain, not lass than three hundred (300) square fast of allawebte floor area and not more than seven hundred (700) square feat of allowable floor area. The unit shall be deed restricted, meeting the housing authoritys guidelines for resident ocoupied units and shall be itmi'ted to rental periods of not less than six (6) month& in dur2tion. Owners of the principal residence stall have the right to place;a qualified employee or amployses of his or her choosin0 in the accessory dwelling unit. The applicant states that the proposed accest� ory dwelling unit is to be 640 square feet of living area, and is to he located in the garden level of a single family unit of a duplex home. The plans show that the accessory dwelling unit will have a private entrance, but the plans also show that the mechanical and storage room is accessible only through this unit.. The accessory dwelling unit must be a totally private unit, therefore, there has to be another entrance into the mechanical and storage area from the main residence. The kitchen must also be built to the fallowing specifzca.tiOns Kitt - For Accessory Dwelling Un1ts and Caretaker Dwelling Units, a minimum of a two -burlier stove with oven, standard sink, and a S-cubic foot refrigerator plus freezer. Before the applicant can . receive building permit appI-Ova.l. , the applicant must provide to the Housing office plans which show another entrance int© the. mechanical and storage area from the principal residence and a. signed and. recorded Deed Restriction, which can be obtained from the Housing Office. The Housing office must have the recorded book and page number prior to building permit approval.. �ward�rtforr-:L \anowbuny.adu MEMORANDUM TO: Dave Michaelson, Planning Office FROM: Chuck Roth, Engineering Department DATE: August 14, 1995 RE: Snowbunny Conditional Use Review For an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) (1225 Snowbunny Lane, Lot 7, Block 1 Snowbunny Subdivision) Having reviewed the above referenced application, the Engineering Department has the following comments: 1. Additional unit of density may not be appropriate on Snowbunny Lane ADU. 2. If ADU approved, require on site parking space. The neighborhood ROW is narrow. 3. Driveway does not need section 19-101 which only permits one driveway. However a second driveway could be approved as provided for in section 19-102. 4. Indicate five foot wide pedestrian usable space on final development plan. 5. Drainage - One of the considerations of a development application for conditional use is that there are adequate public facilities to service the use. One public facility that is inadequate is the City street storm drainage system. The new development plan must provide for no more than historic flows to leave the site. Any increase to historic storm run-off must be maintained on site. 6. Work in the Public Right-of-way - Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and development in public right-of-way adjacent to private property, we advise the applicant as follows: The application shall consult city engineering (920-5088) for design consideration of development within public rights -of -way, parks department (920-5120) for vegetation species, and shall obtain permits for an work or development, inclu ' g p p Y p landscaping, within public rights -of -way from city streets department (920-5 0 . } 40014 u cc: Stan Clauson M145_ MEMORANDUM TO: Dave Michaelson, Community Development THRU: George Robinson, Parks Director FROM: Rebecca Baker, Parks Department DATE: August 8, 1995 RE: Snowbunny Conditional Use Review for an Accessory Dwelling Unit We have reviewed the application submitted by Snowbunny Equity Ventures, LLC and offer the following comments. The subject property has a significant hedge of Lilac bushes surrounding the de front of the parcel which faces Snowbunny Lane. While typically Lilac bushes do not fall under the City's tree removal code, this hedge may be in the public right-of-way. Since there is no r landscape plan with this application, it is difficult to determine what the owners intent is for this area as well as the other trees and vegetation on the property. If the hedge is in the public right-of- way we would request that the majority of the hedge remain as a part of the landscape plan. Additionally, any trees proposed to be impacted by the new development will require a tree e from the Parks Department. Any tree permit would be required to meet the revised tree ordinancet code standards for removal, relocation and mitigation. A copy of the revised tree ordinance may be obtained from the Parks Department. Y MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Mary Lackner, Planner RE: Historic Landmark Lot Split Text Amendment DATE: August 22, 1995 SUMMARY: The applicant is seeking City approval to create a Historic Landmark Lot Split provision in the Aspen Municipal Code. This text amendment contemplates creating a Subdivision Exemption, GMQS Exemption, changes the minimum lot area and width requirements in the R-6 zone district, and creates review standards for the Lot Split. The Historic Landmark Lot Split would only be permitted in the R-6 zone district. The Commission conceptually reviewed the applicant's request on August 8th and recommended that staff come back with a more concise method to permit a historic landmark lot split than was proposed in the August 8th memorandum by staff. Staff has revised its recommendation to mirror the amendment proposed by the applicant. Staff is also recommending that all HPC bonuses and variances permitted for a historic landmark be permitted on the newly created lot which contains the historic landmark. Staff does not recommend that any HPC bonuses or variances be permitted on the new lot that does not contain the historic structures. APPLICANT: Jake Vickery. APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The proposed Historic Lot Split text amendment would be available on lots located in the R-6 zone district, which are 9,000 sq.ft. to 12,000 sq.ft. in size, and contain a historic landmark of which the whole parcel will be landmarked. The lot split would enable one lot of 3,000 sq.ft. to be created for the historic residence. The FAR of the total development is restricted to the duplex FAR permitted on the original lot. Except for the limitation of the allowable FAR, the newly created lots shall be treated as lots of record. A code amendment is also proposed for the minimum lot area and lot width requirements of the R-6 zone to permit the creation of a 3,000 sq.ft., 30 foot wide parcel. The applicant is also proposing to add a provision to Division 6 of the Aspen Municipal Code which deals with development involving a historic landmark. This would give HPC review authority over the design and layout of a historic landmark lot split development proposal. This language also states, "Each lot shall have the ability to receive the same variances and bonuses available to similarly sized lot of record." Staff has recommended that this language be eliminated from the code amendment. The applicant is proposing that this lot split be reviewed and approved at the administrative level by the Community Development Director. The GMQS exemption is proposed not to be deducted from the development pool. Staff has revised its original recommendation to permit this procedural review. In comparison the Lot Split provisions presently available in the Code are reviewed and approved by City Council and the GMQS exemption is deducted from the growth pool and are limited to one new lot split per year. STAFF COMMENTS: Staff conceptually supports the applicant's proposal as it provides an additional historic preservation incentive without increasing density. There are several areas of concern staff has with the method in which the proposed code amendment is drafted. Staff recommends the following changes to the proposed code amendment to insure consistency with the existing provisions of the code addressing lot splits. Staff's revised code changes are written in the staff recommendation section of this memorandum. The applicant's request is subject to the review standards of Section 24-7-1102 which follows: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this chapter. Response: The applicant's text amendment changes are not in conflict with any chapters of the code, but the revised method to approve the Historic Landmark Lot Split is not consistent with the original Lot Split procedure of the Code. The areas where there may have been conflict (creating a non -conforming lot of less than 6,000 sq.ft.), are proposed to be corrected. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Response: The AACP does not specifically address this type of amendment. The proposed amendment will permit the Historic Preservation Committee design review authority over both lots created by the lot split. This should represent better design in a new residence that compliments the neighboring historic structure. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Response: The Historic Landmark Lot Split is proposed for only the 2 R-6 zone district, on parcels between 9, 000 and 12, 000 square feet. There are 21 parcels in the R-6 zone district that are between 9,000 and 12,000 and on the historic inventory. The applicant has proposed the code amendment to reflect a development proposal he is contemplating for 123 W. Francis in the R-6 zone district. The Aspen Municipal Code presently permits two detached residential dwelling units in the R-6 zone district on a lot of 9,000 sq.ft. or greater. Therefore, no additional density is proposed by this text amendment only the form of ownership is changing. During the Planning and zoning Commission work session there was some discussion that this code amendment should be expanded to include other residential zone districts and to allow it on lots of 6,000 sq.ft. in size in the R-6 zone district. The following list identifies the special provisions available for historic landmarks in the Office, R-15 and R/MF zone districts: o office zone district permits two detached residential dwelling units on a lot of 6,000 sq.ft. if one of the units is a historic landmark, with conditional use approval. o The R-15 zone district permits two detached residential dwelling units on a lot of 15,000 sq.ft. if one of the units is a historic landmark, with conditional use approval. o The R/MF zone district permits two detached residential dwelling units on a lot of 6,000 sq.ft., if one of the units is a historic landmark, with conditional use approval. o The R-6 zone district permits two detached residential dwelling units on a lot of 6,000 sq.ft. if one of the units is a historic landmark, with conditional use approval. Although staff believes that this historic preservation incentive may provide protection for historic resources on some sensitive parcels in the O, R-15 and R/MF zone districts, we feel uncomfortable expanding the lot split ability to a conditional use. Should this code amendment be approved by the City, it may provide a guide to look at these other zones and smaller R-6 parcels in the future. Since the proposed code amendment does not increase the allowed density, staff believes it is consistent with this standard. D . The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. 3 Response: There should be no negative effect on traffic generation or road safety, since the allowed density in the R-6 zone district is not increasing as a result of this text amendment. E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. Response: Since there is no increase in the existing permitted density on a parcel, there should be no increase in demands on these public facilities. All development is still subject to the mitigation required in the code (parks, housing, school district, etc.). F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. Response: Since this code amendment would only be available to parcels in the R-6 zone district, impacts to the natural environment should be minimal. The R-6 zone is located in a relatively flat portion of the City limits and does not encroach into f loodplain, avalanche, rockfall, or steep slope areas. The primary natural environment issue in the R-6 area is the preservation of large trees and open irrigation ditches. Trees are protected by other provisions in the Code. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. Response: The creation of a 3,000 sq.ft lot in the R-6 zone district is consistent and compatible with the historic nature of the City. Preserving and enhancing historic resources is also compatible with the community character of the City of Aspen. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Response: The applicant can proceed with the proposed project without this code amendment because he has obtained a GMQS exemption and condominiumization from the City. The applicant is not interested in the condominiumization form of ownership and has proposed this code amendment to provide an alternative for the creation of fee simple lots. 4 I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this chapter. Response: The proposed amendment would be consistent with the public interest and is drafted to be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this chapter. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the applicant's request as drafted below. Section 7-1003 Subdivision Exemption (add a new section Section 7- 1003 (A) (5) . S. Historic Landmark Lot Split. The split of a lot that is a designated historic landmark for the development of one new single-family dwelling. The Historic Landmark Lot Split shall meet the requirements of Section 7- 1003 (A) (2) , Section 8-105 (A) (2) (e) , Section 7-607 and the following standards: 1. The original parcel shall be between 9,000 and 12,000 square feet in size and is located in the R- 6 zone district. 2. The total FAR for both residences shall not exceed the floor area allowed for a duplex on the original parcel. The total FAR for each lot shall be noted on the Subdivision Exemption Plat. 3. 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. Section 8-105 GMQS Exemption (add new section 8-105(A)(2)(e)) Planning Director approval. e. Historic Landmark Lot Split. The construction of a new single family dwelling on a lot created through a Historic Landmark Lot Split pursuant to Section 7- 1003 (A) (5) . Section 5-201 Medium Density Residential (R-6) would have the following language added: 1. Minimum lot size ( square feet) : 6, 000. For lots created by Section 8-105(B) (2) (a) (1) (c) Historic Landmark Lot Split: 31000. 5 3. Minimum lot width (feet): 60. For lots created by Section 8-105 (B) (2) (a) (1) (c) Historic Landmark Lot Split: 30. Add Section 7-607 to Division 7 Development in an H, Historic Overlay District or involving a Historic Landmark to read: A. Historic Landmark Lot Split. The development of all lots created pursuant to Section 7-1003(A)(5) shall be reviewed by HPC at a public hearing. l ral July 21, 1995 J A K I Mary Lackner Aspen Community Development Department 100 SOUTH SPRING ST. #3 130 South Galena POST OFFICE BOX 1236o Aspen, Colorado 81611 ASPEN.COLORADO81612 TELEPHONE / FACSIMILE ( 970 ) 925-3660 RE: TEXT AMENDMENT FOR SMALL HISTORICAL LANDMARK LOTS Dear Mary, Please consider this our formal application for the attached text amendment. Attached is a check for $2,040.00. This text amendment is framed to address only the R6 zone (Section 5-201). -Further it is framed only for Historically Landmarked parcels. This is done to simplify processing and to relate directly to what is already permitted by the code. This text amendment proposes a change to the GMQS Exemption by Planning Director (Section 8-105) and the Subdivision Exemption by Planning Director (Section 7-1003). This is requested because this text amendment does not result in the creation of any new units of density and only effects the method of ownership of units which are currently allowed by right, are currently exempt from GMQS, and can currently be owned as Condominiums. Although the Code currently permits the creation of these smaller single family residences, it does not provide a mechanism for individual ownership of them except through Condom in ization. Condominimia;2 ion in this circumstance can be awkward and involved at best and results in no particular benefit to the public realm. This code amendment attempts to offer options to this situation allowing a simple lot split and individual ownership of each of the smaller houses and the "lots" they are on. Such site specific development is already fully reviewed by the Planning Director, HPC, P&Z, and the City Engineer and no increase or decrease in the "level of review" would result from this amendment. Further, there is no additional impact to the Public Realm from this proposed text amendment. Further, this text amendment supports and enhances various elements of both the AACP and Historical Preservation. Data base and mapping work through the City Mapping Department has shown that the number of effected parcels is approximately 21. This would include parcels already developed as duplexes or engorged single family residences. Please see attached information for more detail on this research. Res e tfully, E Jake Vickery '� j 7-1004 APPLICATION A. 6-202 General Information: Please see attached information and the Development Application for 123 West Francis dated May 8, 1995 for additional detail. B. Precise wording of the proposed amendment: Effected sections of the Code are attached and precise wording is shown for each individual section. C. No Amendment to the Zone Map is requested. 7-1102 SPECIFIC REPLIES TO REVIEW STANDARDS A. This proposal is consistent with the Code and does not conflict with any portions of the Code. B. This proposal is consistent with the AACP. It attempts to stimulate and encourage the creation of smaller units of density, smaller modules of massing, and smaller free market houses presumably more available for ownership by local families. In addition it supports and enhances Historical Preservation. Please see notes. M �' (X• C. There is no change of use or density with this text amendment. Development is consistent with what is already permitted and existing in the R6 zone and the neighborhood. D. There are no increased effects on traffic generation or road safety associated with this amendment. E. There are no increased impacts on public facilities. F. There are no increased impacts on the natural environment associated with this amendment. G. This text amendment is not only consistent and compatible with the community character but strives to enhance it. H. This code amendment is to encourage individual single family ownership and the creation of smaller units of density and smaller individuated building masses to balance the predominance of larger ones now being created. I. This amendment supports the public interest and is in harmony with the Code. HISTORIC LOT SPLIT PROPOSED CODE CHANGES Jake Vickery Architects 7-21-95 Sec. 7-1003 Subdivision Exemptions (by planning director) add new Section 7-1003(A)(5) 5 Historic Lot S.p it The split of a lot that is a designated historic landmark creating no more than 2 lots, both lots conforming to the requirements of the underlying zoning district and the applicant commits that any new lot for which development is proposed will contain an accessory dwelling unit. Sec. 8-105 GMQS Exemptions _ add new Section 8-105 (a) (ii) (e) (�o - (° 5 ( lq� CZ ) CQ 4 The construction of a single family residence on a lot created through an Historical Lot Split pursuant to Section 7-1003(A)(5Z Sec. 5-201 Medium Density Residential (R-6) revise Section 5-201 (D) (1) 1. Minimum lot size (square feet): 6,000. For lots created by Historical Lot Split pursuant to 7-1003(A)(31 3.000._ revise Section 5-201 (D) (3) 3. Minimum Lot Width (feet): 60. For lots created by Historical Lot Split pursuant to Section 7-1003(A)(3): 30. DIVISON 7. DEVELOPMENT IN AN H, HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICT ON INVOLVING A HISTORIC LANDMARK add Section Sec 7-607 Sec. 7 - 607 Historic Lot Split A Review Standards Application for Historical Lot Split shall be reviewed pursuant to Sec 7 - 6001. The aggregate allowable FAR for both lots shall not. exceed that otherwise allowed for the parent parcel and apportioned by a site specific development plak Each lot shall have the ability to receive the same variances and bonuses available to similarly sized lots of record Such lot split and development on -all lots so created shall be reviewed by HPC. TO: PLANNING & ZONING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE RE: 500 WEST BLEEKER, BLOCK 29, LOTS R & S. APPLICATION FOR VARIANCES, ADU, B & B, BUILDING OPTIONS, CONDOMINIUMIZATION & FREE MARKET. The Hall home of 500 W. Bleeker, is a Historical Landmark. Currently the five bedroom, three bath home has twenty-four hundred eight square feet (24081), with forty-six percent (46%) of the six thousand (60001) square foot lot covered. We are requesting fifty-seven percent (57%) coverage of the site, an ADU of four hundred eighty-two square feet (4821), three garages of four hundred seventy-two square feet (4721), condominiumization, a free market unit, two garages of four hundred ninety-six square feet (4961). down FAR - three hundred ninety-three square feet (3931) and upstairs FAR - eight hundred eighty-seven square feet (8871). We are requesting a one foot (11) setback on the West/East sides to allow for the needed number of garages for the B & B. On the rear (alley) we request to build on the lot line, where the existing garage & carport are already located. Our heights in the proposal design are thirty foot (301). There will be a demo on the existing garage and carport. Thank you for your time and consideration. Case Clark ` Ben Hall RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 22, 1995 JOINT WORKSESSION WITH THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Present for the Planning & Zoning Commission were: Sara Garton, and Jasmine Tygre. Absent were: Tim Mooney, Roger Hunt, Robert Blaich, Marta Chaikovska, and Steven Buettow. Present for the Historic Preservation Commission were: Jake Vickery, Roger Moyer, Martha Madsen, Susan Dodington, and Melanie Roschko. Absent were: Donnelley Erdman, Leslie Holst, Linda Smisek, Sven Alstrom, and Jeffrey McMenimen. Sara Garton of the Planning & Zoning Commission chaired the meeting and called the meeting to order at 5:15 P.M. 500 W. BLEEKER LANDMARK DESIGNATION CONCEPTUAL REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW Amy Amidon of Community Development represented for staff and stated, we are bringing you together because we have a project, a proposed re -development of a historic landmark property in the west end on West Bleeker. Given the several different incentives in the code that the applicant wants to take advantage of, we thought we should bring you all together and try to avoid certain "ping- ponging" between committees or a lot of confusion. Amidon stated, so, this is Casey Clark, and she owns the property with her husband, Ben Hall. (Also present was Tom Yokum, surveyor and architect of the project.) Basically, what they are proposing; the existing house is 2,400 sq. ft. and they would like to request a Bed & Breakfast as an allowed use, it is a conditional use. They would like to request approval for Bed & Breakfast, they would like to add a second unit, which will be condominiumized, and an ADU. Within all that development there are several variances and things that are being requested; a bonus for the ADU, potential FAR bonus from HPC, and setback variances. So, with that, I think we'll pass around pictures of it. They have developed a plan, they have developed sort of a conceptual idea of the elevation, but you shouldn't take these too much as what will necessarily be their proposal. Amidon presented a letter from the applicants, Casey Clark Hall and Ben Hall, to both Commissions stating her requests. (Letter is attached in record). PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 22, 1995 Leslie Lamont of Community Development stated, one of the things we would like to discuss with you tonight is the concept of using the historic program and all the incentives that are with the historic program, and also using the accessory dwelling unit program and the incentives that come along when one proposes an accessory dwelling unit. On top of that, to do a Bed & Breakfast in an historic landmark that is a Conditional Use Review by the Planning & Zoning Commission. So, we would like to get a discussion going between the two groups to make sure that the concept of this project is something that you approve of; what problems do you have with it, what issues you have, and what new information you would need. Typically, what happens is when someone has an historic landmark, they go through conceptual review with HPC and then it comes to P&Z and there are issues that P&Z has about the use of the proposal that often get flushed out in site design issues. An applicant feels like, I've worked all this time with HPC and then I come to P&Z. That's why we thought we would try and do a joint worksession at this point and time, so you all can discuss your issues and throw them out on the table at the same time, and you all can benefit from each of your perspectives on a project like this. Garton stated, my initial response, as being Chairman of the Planning & Zoning, is that this is a very sensitive zoning issue. I am very concerned about something like this going into a residential area and the impacts on the neighborhood. Casey Clark asked, what aspect of it? Garton replied, the number of cars and the garage. The number of people that would be housed in a Bed & Breakfast. Lamont stated, so, you think from a land use perspective the Bed & Breakfast aspect of the project? Garton replied, I'm concerned about it, but I would probably need to see if it can be argued that it is not much of an impact on a residential neighborhood, and see some statistics about that. This is a very tight neighborhood on West Bleeker. Casey Clark stated, for the last ten or fifteen years before Ben's mother died, she actually had the house functioning as a room and board situation, and I understand the serious issue of car impact, but the people impact we have actually been dealing with for fifteen years in that neighborhood. We believe this house has the option of bringing us three suites, so, it's not five bedrooms, it would be three suites. We have asked how many cars that we need, and I don't think we would be having more than three groups in there at this time. Even if we apply for the Bed & Breakfast, I will tell you that we don't have to run it, we're just trying to PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 22, 1995 come up with options because we haven't been successful to date in really renting it like we think that we should. We think the Bed & Breakfast would be really nice in keeping with the historical aspects and I certainly understand the impact, and I don't know if I have answered your questions. We could rent each room out as a bedroom, right now, we could do that, but I think you need to have a supervised home in an area like this historical residential neighborhood and I think we will be able to do that. Garton stated, actually, in our zoning code, we have something about short term in a residential neighborhood, we just passed that, but you couldn't advertise and rent single rooms on a short term basis; that's in our code now. Roschko stated, I'm concerned that maybe this would set a precedent, that other houses in the west end would then want to also become Bed & Breakfasts. Lamont stated, Bed & Breakfast is a conditional use only for historic landmarks. Roschko stated, I mean, other historic houses might get the same idea. Lamont stated, I believe one of the reasons it is in our code is another incentive for people who have historic landmarks to refurbish and maintain their structure and also help them try and find another use for that home other than purely a residential structure. Yokum stated, it is a physically taxing thing to do, on an historic landmark it does limit your ability to make any money on it. A Bed & Breakfast you have enough income from the house itself that the maintenance of the house could be done. It was stated, your's would maybe be small, but what if somebody down the street had a bigger historic house? Yokum replied, I guess that is the reason you come to these meetings so you can get a conditional use and you would have to get one on an individual basis. If someone had a monstrous house and was going to rent it out with little studios, and maybe fifty of them in there, I can see where you might want to turn that down. It was stated, this isn't just a Bed & Breakfast, is it? There's also a free market unit, an ADU unit, and how many rooms for Bed & Breakfast, and what's condominiumized out of all this? 3 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 22, 1995 Lamont stated, let me just walk through this, what I'm going to tell you is what is allowed in the code, right now. This property is historically landmarked. Our code allows for historically landmarked properties to have a second free market unit on the property; it is a 6,000 sq. ft. lot. So, our code allows a second unit on the property. The code also requires that when somebody creates a duplex or they tear down and rebuild a single-family home, or whatever, the code requires somebody to mitigate their employee housing needs, and they have one of three ways that they can do that. They can pay cash -in -lieu, they can be a local working resident and not have to mitigate employee housing, or they can provide an accessory dwelling unit. Then, because the property is historically landmarked, the property owner has the option to pursue, to ask, for a review by the Planning & Zoning Commission for a Bed & Breakfast. It was asked, in the new code or new ordinance, wasn't there something about the number of garages? Lamont asked, you mean, Ordinance 30, our Residential Design Standards? It was answered, yes. Lamont stated, our Residential Design Standards did a lot of things. One thing that it did, it took away the 500 sq. ft. bonus for garages, you only get 250 sq. ft. now; it also gives quite a few recommendations on how to deal with a garage. If you have an alley, your garage has to be off of the alley in order for you to obtain a 250 sq. ft. bonus. It cannot be off of the street, it has to be off of the alley. The other thing that we did, the code used to require one parking space per free market bedroom, and we've changed that and we require two parking spaces per dwelling unit. In addition, with an accessory dwelling unit, you are not required to have a parking space for the accessory dwelling unit, unless, during the review it is determined that a parking space is necessary because of the neighborhood or all the other uses on the site. That's what we have done with parking. Lamont added, now, because Casey has an historic landmark and she is attempting to take advantage of the incentive program that we have in the historic landmarks, one of those was to pursue a Bed & Breakfast, and also, because she is doing an accessory dwelling unit, there's a variety of bonuses and variations that she can request. From HPC she can request side yard setback variances, rear yard setback variances, a height variance for the accessory dwelling unit on the alley, she can also request a floor area bonus up to 500 sq. ft. that all come along with having an historic landmark. For the accessory dwelling unit, in our code, it says that if you have an accessory dwelling unit that is 100% above grade, which is what is proposed, then, you also get a floor area bonus of 250 sq. ft. or half of the size of the unit, whichever is less. So, there's quite a few pots here that we are going to be PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 22, 1995 putting together, and we wanted to run this by you "guys" altogether. It was asked, Amy, if you total all the figures in the second paragraph, is she as big as she can go? Amidon replied, in fact, she's over that right now, with this proposal, and Casey knows that, and knows that there's going to need to be some trimming. Casey Clark stated, we're over about 400 sq. ft. Amidon stated, and that's assuming that they would get the ADU bonus and the full 500 sq. ft. from HPC. Moyer asked, Amy, she is currently over 400 sq. ft., correct? Amidon answered, yes. Moyer asked, if she has an ADU bonus, is she still over 400 sq. ft.? Amidon replied, yes, they are over by 450 sq. ft., or something like that, assuming even that they already got a bonus of 250 for an ADU and 500 from HPC. So, in theory, they are 1,100 sq. ft. over what's allowed? Moyer stated, thank you. Yokum stated, as you can see, there's five parking spots there. Moyer stated, I would like to make a comment. From an HPC member and perspectives, when someone said let's make an historic house into a Bed & Breakfast, I thought that was a pretty interesting concept. My first concern was, well, there's going to be two issues here; there are going to be neighbors and the neighbors are going to be concerned about people and cars. So, let's address first, the people. The house has five bedrooms and the house can conceivably have ten people living in it, with five bedrooms, two to a bedroom. That means that there could be twenty cars with ten people living in the house. If there are three suites, and they are rented out, that would normally be two people per suite, so that's six people. Then, you have, along with the three suites, is there a person that lives there all the time? That's the ADU. With the ADU you would possibly have two more people, so, you would have eight people there, possibly, at any given time. That would be sixteen cars, conceivably. Moyer continued saying, now, I looked at this litte presentation here, and I thought, they're asking for all these garages. Just before I came here, I read this little memorandum, and just before I came here, I sat downstairs and listened to all the chatter and discussion about the entrance to Aspen and the connection between the airport and Buttermilk to Aspen. I thought, and I've said this for years, why can't they have a Bed & Breakfast; get rid of the garages, maybe, none or one. Any guest who stays here, if they drive into town, a simple requirement; if you want to check in here, you check in, your car is taken to the garage outside of town. If you want to get around town, you take the bus, or you 5 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 22, 1995 take the one car that is assigned to the house as part of the agreement and that car takes you where you want to go. That way, we get rid of the cars, right? I see no reason why a person should come into Aspen and have to rent a car to drive around town. It should be forbidden, plain and simple, you can't do it, unless you want to drive to Vail, or go jeeping, and the concierge gets you the car and you take the thing and go to where it is you want to go, and then you don't have a rental car sitting in the parking space or whatever. I thought I would just throw it out to you; get rid of all these silly garages, forget about the parking and let's deal with, from our perspective, the historic structure and whatever is added on in mass and scale and being compatible. Let's add to the the mass and vitality of Aspen, providing it can work with the neighborhood, there really isn't any reason it couldn't. I love to stay at Bed & Breakfasts, personally, and they work, they're great. So, I think it is, possibly, an exciting possibility. I don't think it is exciting when you are adding all these garages and bringing in more cars. I think there are ways, hopefully, that we can start dealing with these car issues, and that's something, I think HPC and P&Z really need to address this automobile fiasco, because it is crazy. Let's maybe formulate something so we can get rid of the car; put some restrictions. Want another lodge, great; no cars, sorry. Garton stated, as Casey just pointed out, they may not rent it out. They are going to go ahead and go through this, but they may not operate this as a Bed & Breakfast. Casey Hall stated, I'm saying, in reviewing with HPC and P&Z in terms of mandatory requirements, it is my understanding that you don't have to mandatorily rent it as a Bed & Breakfast. Lamont stated, well, if you didn't have a Bed & Breakfast, and you had two free market units, and you have an accessory dwelling unit on the property, the parking requirement would be two spaces per dwelling unit and then, the discussion would be around, would you require a parking space for the ADU? So, I hear what you are saying, Roger, but if you take away the commercial aspect of the property, the five parking spaces, or just four parking spaces, would meet the requirements of the code. Moyer stated, let's say, given historic properties, particularly landmarks, that you throw away adding all these garages and "stuff", because it really detracts from the historic character of the building. A garage is not necessary as part of the historic character of that building, so, let's get rid of the garage, get rid of the cars. And if people want to do something with an historic landmark building, part of the arrangement that we can start demanding is to stop dealing with the automobile. 6 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 22. 1995 Yokum stated, I agree with you, I don't think anybody wants more cars in Aspen, but at the same time, the economic loss would be taken by historic landowners, so it's now you want to sell it and the "guy" says, I would like to buy that but I've got this "Olds". Moyer stated, well, you have the garage. Yokum stated, you've got this one garage for this "guy" who buys this million dollar property? Conceptually, I think you are right. Moyer stated, the real issue is, in order to provide the garages, you have to add on, therefore, you're taking away the integrity of the historic property by having to do that. Vickery stated, I would like some clarifications. I'm trying to figure out what he has got here. Right now, you have a single- family house with five bedrooms, and are you doing anything with that house, or is that going to just remain a house. Ben Hall replied, that's going to be the Bed & Breakfast. Vickery stated, so, three of those five bedrooms will be suites. So, the historical structure becomes the Bed & Breakfast. O.K., then, you want to add another free market unit that's presumably for you "guys" to live in? How big would that free market unit be, then? How many bedrooms would it have? Clark answered, one or two, depending on our allowable FAR. Vickery stated, you are also proposing, because you need to do this to get an ADU, and where would that be, above grade or below grade (referring to site plan) ? Clark replied, above grade, above the garage. Vickery asked, what size of ADU would that be? Hall replied, it is a studio and presented the floor plan. Clark stated, 482. Vickery asked, now, above all that, you want to have a three -car garage? Yokum replied, below the ADU, and attached to the Bed & Breakfast, would be a three -car garage. Vickery asked, are you re- locating the historical house? Yokum answered, no, the historical house doesn't get touched. Vickery stated, so, you have a total of a five -car garage, and on top of that, you want to condominiumize. Yokum replied, that just splits off the free market unit from the historical piece, it just makes that a free market condominium, basically. Vickery asked, what is the total FAR of the historical house? Clark answered, 2,408. Vickery asked, does that count the basement? Clark answered, that does not count the basement. Vickery stated, just FAR. What is the FAR of the new free market unit? Yokum stated, we can probably downsize it to around 1,000 or 900. It was stated, I think that is what Jake is working on. 7 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 22, 1995 Lamont stated, we really want Casey to sit down with Bill Drueding and go over how they are figuring their existing FAR on the property; especially with Ordinance 30, porches do not count any longer and things like that, so she needs to sit down and try and figure out exactly what her existing FAR is. Garton asked, Amy, I'm not quite sure why we are seeing this so early. First of all, this is wrong, all these totals are. I mean, what were you hoping to get from Planning & Zoning? Amidon answered, we are still trying to get a feel from you about how, given her basic site plan, you feel about the number of variances being requested, how you feel about the mixture of uses with the Bed & Breakfast combined with another dwelling unit? Garton answered, that's way too big a mass, too much for that neighborhood, there are too many concessions to make this work. Clark asked, when you say too many, can you tell me which ones? You can build a free market unit, and I don't have to build an ADU. Garton responded, it's big, it's too big, Casey. In this case, I don't think an ADU really works in this parcel, it makes it too big. Lamont stated, one thing that we talked about is, if a Bed & Breakfast were proposed and approved, that the ADU would become the employee dwelling unit. Casey and I have talked about actual fully deed restricting the unit. Tygre stated, speaking from Planning & Zoning Commission's point of view, I'm a little bit concerned about the Bed & Breakfast usage on the property. I think one of the things that really bothers me is not so much the application itself of a Bed & Breakfast, but the fact that, now it is a Bed & Breakfast, and now it isn't. I think Roger's point about the garages is very well taken. If in fact, this is going to be run as a Bed & Breakfast, then, I would think that you could have the kind of usage where the garages would not be necessary and I think that would create a whole different type of usage on the property. On the other hand, you cannot compel somebody to run a Bed & Breakfast if it is not making any money, and you have to look down the way at what happens, if, in fact, it doesn't work as a Bed & Breakfast, which means a different kind of configuration, a different kind client usage, a different kind of occupancy, and that makes me very uncomfortable on this parcel. I agree with Sara, I think the bulk is unacceptable. I think that if you came in for building your second unit, I would probably go along with Sara and say this is not appropriate for an ADU. Even if you deed restrict it though, the occupancy by an employee is not mandatory, is it? ,a, PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 22, 1995 Lamont stated, if we fully deed restrict it, it would be. As an employee unit that would track with the Bed & Breakfast. Tygre stated, suppose it doesn't work as a Bed & Breakfast? All these things that might be O.K. with a Bed & Breakfast, if the Bed & Breakfast works in that particular neighborhood, and I think you would have a lot of neighbors that would make comments one way or the other, and it might very well turn out to be a terrific Bed & Breakfast; on the other hand, you build a Bed & Breakfast and it doesn't work as a Bed & Breakfast, then you've got an approval for something which really doesn't exist anymore and which is not appropriate for a residential use. I'm having a real hard time coming to grips with it; maybe, I'm just not comprehending this. Moyer stated, if it were built for a Bed & Breakfast and that's how it was approved, and then, it ran for a Bed & Breakfast for ten years, and then, somebody decided they wanted to sell it, then, they would have to re -apply to do anything more. Tygre stated, no, it could be just a conditional use to just go back to residential. Moyer stated, if they didn' t build out as big as they want to build out, in otherwords, if they didn't build out as many garages or the ADU, or the free market, or whatever; if they build out small they would have to come back to build out more if they reverted from a Bed & Breakfast to something else, right? Tygre stated, if they reverted from a Bed & Breakfast to a residential use and wanted to add on; if they are going to exceed their FAR. Clark stated, I don't understand. Moyer stated, what I think is happening is, they are coming before us with two applications; one for a Bed & Breakfast, and one, what if? In other words, they want to "max" the thing out so if it doesn't work as a Bed & Breakfast they can sell it off and it becomes a house with three garages, a separate condominium, and an ADU, right? So, what if they came to us only for a Bed & Breakfast and it was scaled back and it didn't have that number of garages; it had the one free market unit and/or ADU, but the addition, was in fact, smaller? So, they have to decide what they want to do. Garton stated, legally, you can't do that either. The only way I could be happy in granting a Bed & Breakfast without garages, is to say, forever it is going to be a Bed & Breakfast and guests cannot have cars. Clark stated, I want you to understand that in the proposal it's not that I want three garages for the main house, it seems to be the need to be granted for the usage, so, if you are saying that 9 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 22, 1995 you can arbitrarily lose a garage and have the historical home, two garages, which I think everyone would agree is normal, and we are allowed to build out a free market unit, and I don't know if the ADU is necessary or not, I don't know about that, but I understand that you like ADUs, so, if you don't like an ADU, you just want a house with two garages and a free market, maybe we could re -focus our energies. Garton stated, you would have a big mitigation to pay though, for the employees. Lamont stated, not necessarily, if, as part of the process of building the new addition; there's an old garage right now that counts in the f loor area that would be torn down. I mean, we would look at that. If Casey was to live there, live in the new free market unit, working Bed & Breakfast, there would be no mitigation until such time as Casey sold the home to someone who is now a working resident of Pitkin County. You are right, there could be. We had this discussion a couple of years ago when someone was converting a garage into their second free market unit, on their historically landmarked property, and then they wanted to provide an accessory dwelling unit and there was no ability for any parking lot. Staff was very split over this, and we felt that we would rather give up the accessory dwelling unit because the code allows them, as a right, to have a second free market unit on the historically landmarked property and that it was too much on the property. Tygre stated, I think it is unfair, too, to the applicants, that there are only two people here from the Planning & Zoning Commission, and Sara and I tend to agree on a lot of things, and I think there are other members of the Planning & Zoning Commission who have diametrically oppposed viewpoints, and they are not going to benefit, such as it may be, from these opposing viewpoints. I want you to understand that this is just two people. Lamont stated, I think this is very good, because HPC has the ability to grant a variety of variances on this project and they have the ability to grant floor area bonus. HPC is hearing from some P&Z members that the bulk and mass is too big, but P&Z is willing to eliminate the ADU in order to reduce the bulk and mass. So, when you "guys" give a conceptual review, you've heard that, because if the bulk and mass still feels too big if Casey comes over to P&Z for the conditional use review for the Bed & Breakfast, there's things in there that don't work. Yokum asked, the bulk of the house, is that the issue? Garton stated, for myself, Tom, I would like to see the ADU go away and that way some of the parking can go away. 10 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 22, 1995 Yokum asked, it's not the use as a Bed & Breakfast that you find objectionable? Garton replied, I didn't realize that's a conditional use for a historic parcel, so, I better shut my mouth on that one. The conditional use has to come through us and that is a whole public hearing and neighbors might have a lot more to say than I would have to say about that. Clark stated, I will share with you that is a huge issue to the neighbors, and I will share with you that, basically, Sue ran a Bed & Breakfast for many, many years, so, the neighbors have been familar with it. I only know one set of neighbors that have a strong feeling against it, and that's the Stromberg's, and they just put their house up for sale, and I don't know if it because they think I'm applying for a Bed & Breakfast or what. Clark continued stating, in that neighborhood you have the Historical Museum, and you have the Music Chamber, and you have the Yellow Brick and the Waldorf School, and you have Westec, and so, actually, you have already allowed different things. Commissioner Roschko had to leave the meeting at this point. Madsen stated, I sympathize with this property, and I agree that the impacts of a Bed & Breakfast, a small Bed & Breakfast like this, and I stayed at a great one in a residential area just a couple of weeks ago, and I have to say, there was no place to put my car and I got a parking ticket, but I did go to City Hall and they were sympathetic. I really feel that a small Bed & Breakfast in this neighborhood is not that inappropriate, and I think when you have properties like this, there's some give and take to be done. I mean, we live in a residential resort. Yokum stated, I think making houses like this profitable maintains them, basically. Madsen stated, conceptually, I'm not opposed to it. Clark stated, I really appreciate all your time during this worksession, and I will tell you that I will pay you for all your advise. I may not agree with it, but any ideas you have to make this property work, because it is not working. So, anything you "guys" have. Vickery stated, I agree, basically, with Sara, that this is just too much "stuff", and I'm very sympathetic regarding landmarks and the problems that they have, and I would try to work anyway possible to make this a successful situation for you, but I do PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 22, 1995 think, all and all, just the cumulative affects of all the things that you are requesting here, as a total package, are going to be too much. Clark stated, well, pick the ones you like and let us know what you would approve. Vickery stated, I can sort of tell you a couple of things. First of all, I don't think I'd support more than three cars on the site. Clark asked, do you mean that, three garages? Vickery replied, well, I'd rather see one two -car garage and one on -site parking space, but I don't want to say that, I'm just saying, for a 6,000 foot lot, three cars is about the most cars I would like to see on a lot. HPC does have the right to waive other parking spaces, and I don't think you need to park five cars on there; I think if you can get three on there that's good enough for me. Vickery continued stating, I want to reiterate this thing about these FAR bonuses; that usually you have a hard, uphill battle to come in and justify that what you are doing is more compatible to the historical use than what you would otherwise be doing. You've got to become aware of that test, because that is the test that HPC uses in making decisions about the bonuses and variances. We just did a study for another, which I happened to be involved in, but the full bonus has only been allowed a couple of times, and on larger lots, like 10,000, 9,000, you know, bigger lots. So, it's tough to do that. I suggest that you look at utilizing the below grade space as much as possible. Clark stated, we can put the condominium below grade and still have mass, and it is below grade, and we reduce our FAR. So, a free market condominium, if we build it in the basement, we could do it. Vickery stated, you could do it, you could put the ADU in the basement. At times it is preferable to have an ADU above grade, but sometimes not. Clark asked, so, if this plan was below grade, would it be more palatable to you if the condo was set down, the free market condo? Vickery responded, yes, I think so. Clark stated, now, I'm not talking about basement level. Vickery replied, again, it gets into architectural design and it is really impossible to deal with until we see it. Yokum stated, that drawing is actually the actual house and a drawing of the free market attached to it. Clark stated, we have the plans here, and I don't think it is cost effective to keep drawing plans unless you give us some feedback. 12 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 22, 1995 Vickery stated, I am trying to discourage you from going after the 500 foot bonus because I think you are going to have a very hard time. Clark asked, what are the advantages of having an historical landmark if you can't use any of the incentives? Vickery responded, well, I support your Bed & Breakfast application, I mean, I think that's the whole point. It is to allow landmarks a wider variety of uses to help form the economically viable. I support the Bed & Breakfast without question, basically. Yokum asked, do you feel a conflict, if you say, O.K., I'm supporting the Bed & Breakfast, but at the same time, I don't want too much parking on this? That to me is like a conflict; I assume most people that would come here would drive right up. Vickery stated, you are just going to have to park on the street and the street will absorb it. Yokum asked, is that a huge issue in town? Vickery replied, well, everybody's got different opinions on it. Garton stated, Sardy House, and all of them, encourage in their literature, not to bring their cars. Yokum stated, it would be nice if you could get your clients and clientele not to bring cars, I think that's the idea. Madsen stated, I have apartments, and I hate to tell you, but I have single people with two cars; people have cars, they have to park on the street. Dodington stated, they are not people who visit, they come on the airplane and they can take a taxi there and they can use the bus. Clark asked, what is the feedback on the free market condo, because I know the Bed & Breakfast, I got some feedback there, but I'm not clear on the free market condominium? If we remove the ADU and remove the third garage? Vickery stated, I' m not sure how you remove the ADU exactly, unless you are going to do cash -in -lieu. Garton stated, later they do cash -in -lieu. Lamont stated, if a working resident lives in the second free market unit, they can defer the mitigation. Clark asked, can HPC waive cash mitigation? Lamont answered, no. We would figure out what is the new net leasable compared to the new f loor area that' s added to the property versus the floor area that's eliminated. There is a garage and a shed in the back, right now, that we are counting that would be eliminated as part of this proposal. So, we would figure out what is the new net floor area and figure out employee mitigation. 13 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 22, 1995 Vickery stated, according to the numbers as I tried to understand them here, the existing house is 2480, which means you've got left over 800 and something square feet, and you are only proposing a 1,200 foot second unit. Clark stated, I think that's all that we have because we were told we had to have an ADU, so, if we are just looking at the square footage of the FAR, and we have a free market condominium, and that's where we are focusing our energy. I think we need to find out how much square footage is managable within the guidelines and approvals. Vickery stated, all I'm trying to say is, that right now, as I understand it, you have something like 800 square feet available to you, and if you only want to do a 1,200 foot free market condominium, then, that seems it is pretty close to almost fitting in there. You eliminate a couple of cars and garages. The reason the whole garage thing got reduced, it used to be one per bedroom; it is just too much mass, or housing mass, or bulk on the site. Yokum stated, you are starting out here with 46o coverage of the entire 6,000 feet, and the increase we are asking for is 11 increased to 570, so I don't think it is massive. Vickery stated, I'm not sure you can get there from there, though. Your required coverage is 450, right, your maximum allowable coverage. It is something like that. Lamont stated, our intention was not to get into debating the numbers and design the project for the applicant, our intention was to discuss the concepts and what could you live with and what could you not live with. Moyer stated, in regards to that, I would like to ask for kind of a straw poll feeling. The first question would be, conceptually, as a Bed & Breakfast, are you for it or against it? Conceptually, would you encourage the applicant to use underground space? Conceptually, would you encourage the applicant to ask for maximum three parking spaces, whether enclosed or not? And conceptually, would you want to have an ADU, or let that slide for now? I think it would help the applicant go on with the process. Dodington asked, could I clarify one thing; Casey, in this picture, is this whole thing the free market? Clark replied, no, don't even look at the design. The basement is the only area on the property that it could be placed. Dodington stated, but all of that space would be the free market? Clark replied, no. Yokum and Clark explained the picture further 14 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 22, 1995 to Dodington. Garton polled the Commissions with the above four conceptual questions mentioned by Moyer and polling was by a show of hands. Garton asked, how many like the idea of a Bed & Breakfast on this parcel? How many would like to see them utilized below grade space more? How many would like to see maximum three spaces of parking? How many would like to see the ADU not a part of this parcel? There was no concensus and split vote among the Commission members with each question. Lamont stated, I think that things like the parking, and the various variances, and even the Bed & Breakfast comes down to review of a very specific application. The kinds of things you would review for a Bed & Breakfast are hours of operation, number of rooms available, and how many employees you think it would take to service it, and things like that. And those are all sorts of things that conditions of approval can be placed on for a very particular use. Moyer stated, what I get is that they are coming in for two things. They are going to have to decide on one or the other; either they are going to ask for a Bed & Breakfast, period, or they are going to "max" out whatever they can "max" out to sell for a future investment. Then, that future investment, as any developer has the right to do, hey, you can have this as a Bed & Breakfast or this is your posh residence with your extra space and all that "stuff". It seems to me that you have to decide which is going to work best. I think it would be easier to ask for a Bed & Breakfast, period, and scale it down, rather than to be looking for selling it for something else and getting something else to happen. Clark stated, a future developer could look at the piece of property, legally, within the guidelines, as a Bed & Breakfast, with a free market unit. Why would that be palatable in the future if it is legal, right now, to ask for those things? Moyer stated, my feeling is, the biggest issue for most of the people is, the mass and scale, the size of the thing. So, maybe, it will be easier to ask for a Bed & Breakfast and look to some other use and scale it down, and it may, in fact, go through much better than trying to do two things. Vickery stated, to go one more step. You've got two things, one of them is a use and the other thing is the structure, and as far as I'm concerned, personally, a Bed & Breakfast use would be O.K. as long as it doesn't impact the structure to the point where it hurts the historical character. If it did, then, I would have to recommend against it, obviously, from an historical preservation point of view. So, your issue there is, can you accommodate the use that you want without endangering or hurting. OR PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 22, 1995 Clark stated, I must tell you, that you can't keep coming up with designs unless you find out what your legal FAR is, and we don't know that yet, O.K. so, right now it appears that there is no ADU in the works. We don't need to do that, but we have to pay a mitigation. So, you don't like the size of the ADU, but you, I'm sure, won't turn down the cash we will have to pay if we don't provide it, is that correct? Vickery stated, the ADU only needs to be 300 square feet, it is relatively small, and it's not a bad thing to have something like that, particularly, if you are a Bed & Breakfast. Dodington stated, actually, I would rather change my vote to vote for the ADU and not the free market unit. Did you plan to live in that and run the thing, because it seems like the person who owns it and runs it could live elsewhere, and the Bed & Breakfast could be as is, like you say. I think it is nice that you are keeping it exactly as it is, even inside, I think that's good. Clark stated, on a personal level, in terms of planning for this property, my life is such that I couldn't live in the house or the f ree market unit; I have a f amily and it wouldn I t do to live on the property. Nor could we afford to live in the main house; I want to share that with you, so we have to find the best use main house. We have restored it to its original integrity and we have had it on the market for two years and no one has looked at it and we are trying to come up with some other uses for it. Now, someone could come in and build a free market unit; we're just trying to keep the property intact. I have another suggestion, why doesn't the City buy it as a museum and then, you "guys" could have it and keep it, you don't have to have parking, and we would be happy. It is very frustrating to deal with something and keep it historical and not have any options. Dodington stated, couldn't the person who runs it live in the ADU, and not have the free market unit. Yokum stated, absolutely, that's the concept. Dodington stated, wouldn't that kind of cover your costs? Clark stated, yes, the potential cost. It is expensive. That house was not given to us, we were given a debt on the house, so when we inherited it, we inherited a debt, a huge debt, so we have been trying to cover that debt and we are trying to f igure out how. I don't know of any other way, other than coming up with another use, or the free market. Garton stated, the free market is a right in the development of an historical property, we're just trying to get everything reduced, Casey. 16 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 22, 1995 Yokum stated, the architecture, we can work with this until I think the free market unit will look as similar to the historic unit and as part of it as possible. Moyer asked, have you discussed with staff at all how HPC looks at additions to historic structures? Do you have any concept of how we look at it and what we want? Clark stated, yes. Amy Amidon replied, yes. Moyer stated, the reason I asked, is that you just made a statement which sent a little flag up; we do not ask that an addition to an historic structure, be it landmarked or otherwise, mimic the historic structure. We like to have it shown that it is different; it's different materials, different style, but it is similar and flows with. We don't like to see that it is attached to, so that it dominates the historic structure in some way, we would prefer that it is attached to by a quarter, if possible, in space allowance, we would prefer that it is subservient to the historic structure, if at all possible, and those are real issues that you need to be clear on before you come in conceptually or otherwise, so you don't spend a lot of money with a design that isn't going to get you anywhere. That's why I asked the question, because you said something that gave me an indication, since this is a discussion worksession, that I don't want you to be put in that position, and I want you to be real clear about what we look for. Clark stated, I would like to say that Amy and Leslie have done a great job. I think the architectural design, we're not at that place yet, we are still working on the variances. Moyer stated, the other reason that I asked that, is when I looked at this, my first reaction to this was, this is huge. This is gross in mass and scale compared to the historic structure, so, this, from your perspective, is a very poor thing to submit to us preliminarily, because it gives a negative reaction (referring to the pictures) . Garton stated, now, we have to end this, and must close this meeting, really. Lamont stated, you may not feel this, but I think we have established some ground rules here and we have a lot of work we need to do with Casey regarding floor area, existing floor area, and what can be proposed, and I think we have some good ideas and some flexibility, and we have some options here. None of you voted unanimously on any of Roger's conceptual questions and what that means to me is that there's still room for a lot of discussion and what would really be important is the next meeting, whether it is conceptual with HPC, or another conceptual worksession with HPC, 17 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 22, 1995 or whatever, that the design and the architecture is the next element. I think we have a lot of "stuff" that we can work with here and I am encouraged. Clark stated, I appreciate your time, but I just think that you have so many rules, and I will tell you, the three garages and the ADU is not necessarily the component ideas, it is what we are told that we think is necessary, so that we come up with conceptual designs. Lamont stated, that's why we wanted to have the worksession rather than spend more money on plans. Clark stated, I think it is important to have more worksessions, and I know that is hard, but somehow it has to be managed, so people don't have to go to a lot of expense. We didn't mean to come in here prematurely. Madsen stated, the other problem with coming to a Board like this, I mean, you come with all these good intentions and then, we're not really focusing on the issue that you came with, and that was, conceptually, and we have just about done a full circle on every other issue. That's hard for a applicant to deal with. There is a lot of information gained from it, but it is difficult. Moyer stated, you're going to have a great project, it's going to work out fine. When you eventually come in, even though it costs a little bit more, do a model, and do a simple massing model of the neighboring structures, and that will get you a long ways through the process as opposed to this drawing. You also have a superb argument for some adjustments because of the structure next door. The structure next door, it is totally unfair to you, because you are on historic property, however, HPC cannot look at something which is next door to you, which mitigates your property far more than what you might add on, because we have no review over that property because it is not historic. ��vr■V•II Lamont stated, let me tell you what is happening with your next agenda. The Alpine Lodge GMQS Exemption is off, and then, the AH/RO Discussion - TDR to Non -Contiguous Parcels, our problem is finding meeting times where Cindy (Houben) can now meet with us because she is so "maxed" out on the County side also. We were orginally trying to schedule another joint P&Z meeting for September 12th, and she just told me about an hour ago that September 12th is off as she has a whole other meeting that is in conflict. So, we will let you know. So, AH/RO Discussion is also off for September 5th. The items on the agenda tonight have been 18 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 22, 1995 moved to September 5th, so, what is being moved to September 5th is; the Snowbunny Conditional Use Review for an Accessory Dwelling Unit and the Vickery Code Amendments. Lamont continued stating, the Ordinance 30 Worksession, primarily we want to bring you "up to speed" in case somebody needs to appeal a residential design standard and they chose to appeal it to the P&Z versus the Design Review Appeal Board (DRAB). So, that worksession is off and will probably be on the 5th or on the 19th (September). Lamont stated, (Regular Meeting - September 19) Water Place Affordable Housing Worksession is definitely on, Marolt Housing PUD Amendment is off. Garton asked, are they not going to ask for that anymore (Marolt Housing)? Lamont answered, we are requesting them to really crack down on parking and who they rent to; renting to people who do not have cars, put boulders in the road so people can't park in the road (the access road). So, you may see this again in February or March. Garton stated, I have a suggestion on that, that maybe they find a place to store cars. Lamont stated, they are going to explore that but it is so difficult because people don't want to store their cars where they know they may not be secure and things like that. We're talking about the airport intercept parking lot now. There was discussion regarding the absences and of the Commissioners and Lamont stated she would City Attorney Worcester regarding the ruling on appointment of another alternate member for the Commission. There was concern because there was meeting. Meeting was adjourned at 6:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ---m - QLJOV-do Sharon M. Carrillo, Deputy City Clerk M excused absences bring it up with absences and the Planning & Zoning no quorum at this