Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19870721 -.--.............. ----..,.-..-...- fl- RECORf}-oF--PROCEIIDINGS PIiARNIHG Alm ZOlfING--------- -dlJL~2l:. -198'1 Chairman Welton Anderson called meeting to order at 5:00 pm. ROLfo-eALL Answering roll call were Jasmine Tygre, Roger Hunt and Jim Colombo. Ramona Markalunas and David White arrived immediately after roll call. Mari Peyton was excused. COMMISSIONER"S COMMElf'l'S Jim Colombo: If the other Commissioners feel as I do, I would like to ask staff to present us with essential summary of Council hearing decisions that effect us or that we would probably have to see again. There are times when Council is making decisions that by protocol should have come to us first. Or decisions that we have passed on to them with our recommendations, and we don't even know what the final decision was. We would like to have some fOllow-up. Perhaps a brief summary of what is going on and what a decision was and what it was based on. Jasmine: Perhaps this could be included in your comments in our packets. Welton: I did some double checking on that Marolt item and at least from Planning staff I have got confirmation that the parcel of land that the house sits on would be a day care center was purchased with the 6th penney funds. Any change in use from open space uses has to go to a vote of the population. Steve: We are trying to get the City Attorney's office to take a position because we feel it is more a legal issue than it is something that the Planning staff has the expertise on. It is a little bit nebulous right now. The City Attorney has not made a definitive statement. Jasmine: Do you have any idea when they are going to come forward with a conditional use application? Steve: They are hoping to come forward very soon. In August they would like to have a P&Z hearing so that hopefully by September, if things go the way they want them to, they could open it up. Jasmine: But we expect to get an opinion from the City Attorney before that time on that condition? Steve: Yes. 1 Roger: Regarding the Zoline Property: I assume that Council has had no P&Z input concerning that type of thing at all. David: I think that it is very important when we do something like we did last week regarding the Marolt property that Council get that and we get something back. Our charter says we are supposed to help plan things for the community and one of our big complaints was in not maintaining what they have got. Now if they have got another piece of property, that's great but the maintenance of that property is critical to making the entrance to Aspen look decent and the Marolt entrance to Aspen looks terrible. The City can do things that other people can't do and we can't have that continue. S'l'M'F. COMMElf'l'S Steve: Council is going to consider an incentive package on Historic Preservation on Monday, July 27. It would be very good if some P&Z members could attend that meeting to explain the basis of the resolution that endorse those incentives in particular the landuse ones since that is basically all this Commission dealt with. PRlN16US-JlltftJ'l'ES Roger made a motion to adopt the minutes of June 16, 1987 and July 7, 1987. Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor. PUBLfe-HEAlUlf(; ALPINE-AeRES-SOBDlVISI()lf-.. REZOlIIl'lf(; Steve: The location of Alpine Acres is just north of Gibson Avenue. There are 5 lots ranging in size of 15,900 sq ft to just over 19,000 sq ft. The total area is 2.7 acres. The most easily distinguishable feature of the subdivision are the 4 victorian structures on Matchless Drive on lots 4 & 5. There are also 2 modern duplexes to the east of those victorians which are known as the Court Club condominiums. Then along Gibson Avenue just behind those or just to the south of the Court Club condominiums is another duplex which were historic structures but they have been added to and altered and modernized a great deal and are now a duplex structure. The request before you is to rezone Alpine Acres from R-15 to R-6. The rezoning was initiated by Joe Dunn and Chip Bishop so that they could do a lot split of Lot 4 of which they are co- owners. That then would allow them to do a modest expansion of their victorians. That is the immediate reason as to why the 2 rezoning is in front of you. The Dunns and Bishops are also requesting a subdivision exception for that lot split. There was a zoning error which we discovered when they had first submitted a request for a lot split. The map said R-6. Then when we looked at the Ordinance it said R-15 with some stipulations. And because it is R-15 they were not allowed at that time to do the lot split. The stipulations were that building of the unimproved lots were to be where the Court Club Condos are now is limited in FAR to 1600 sq ft. and a 6 month minimum lease restrictions were applied to all the properties. Because of that, Council initiated rezoning to help the applicants so that they could submit an application and get things going. Looking at the rezoning criteria, criteria '1 is compatibility with the surrounding zone districts and land uses and a suitability of the site for development. This neighborhood is quite a mix of both land uses, residential land uses and zone districts. There is a lot of R-15 and R-15(a) within that neighborhood. There is also some high density zoning including the mobile home park just to the west of the development and just to the east of Alpine Acres is Sunny Park North which is residential mUlti-family. We feel that there is a certain pattern as you go north. There is that R-15 area and the R-6 is further to the south. However we note that this development is al ready built out at a density that is very similar to R-6 and that R-6 is compatible with the neighborhood. The main issues relate to the outside characteristics and the concerns for any redevelopment of Alpine Acres. We looked at 3 issues primarily. The FAR is something that the applicants have addressed by volunteering that there be restrictions of 2500 sq ft for each dwelling unit. We note that that is higher than the 1600 sq ft limitation on the duplexes but it is considerably lower than what would be allowed if they were to undertake lot splits and create single family lots throughout the subdivision. Basically it is the same number as the duplex FAR on a 1500 sq ft lot. So it is very similar to the existing allowed FAR. We reviewed the size of the existing structures in the sense of what 2500 sq ft is in terms of bulk and the nature of the request which was partly justified in the application to help preserve and enhance those victorians. We felt that 2500 sq ft would allow doubling and tripling the size and may be a little greater than what would take care of all the objectives that we felt were being stated. We determined that 1800 sq ft would allow for a modest expansion that wouldn't overshadow the existing structures nor would it dwarf the neighbor ing structures. We suggest that that be considered as a more appropriate FAR. Also remember that 600 sq ft of garage is exempt from FAR calculations so in effect 3 -.----.--.. you do get a somewhat larger structure. The second issue is the setbacks and greenspace. All of the lots have a great deal of greenspace. The victorians have somewhat of a distinct setback situation where they are approximately 27 ft north of Matchless Drive. This is an amenity of the subdivision that we suggest should be preserved. If you build closer to that street then it could effect the neighbors. It could very much deter or effect negatively the views of the other structures. The third area is the width of the lots. The re-subdividing of Lot 4 cannot meet the minimum lot width of 60 ft in the R-6 zone district. The lot width of newly created parcels are approximately 39 feet and 42 feet. The City cannot approve a subdivision or a lot split exception from subdivision creating non-conforming lots. So the lots can be created through the PUD provision. All three of these issues lead us to think that PUD overlay really would be appropriate for Alpine Acres. That is basically the nature of our recommendation. The other criteria of traffic safety, air and water quality should not be affected because they are not going to change the density at this time. with regard to community need: We think it is really in the benefit of the community to facilitate the owners of the property to be able to make improvements. And regarding the general plan, we noted that the R-6 zone would continue to be consistent with the single family residential category which it now has. Suggested alternatives: The first one is to zone the Alpine Acres Subdivision R-6 and set the 2500 sq ft maximum FAR. The second would be R-6 with 1800 sq ft FAR. The third R-6 with PUD overlay 1800 maximum FAR, a 25 ft front yard setback and establ ish lot widths of less than 60 ft. We are recommending that the '3 alternative. With regard to the Lots with subdivision exception: We noted that the lot that would be created for Lot 4, the parcels would be conforming except in lot width. We recommend the approval subject to the R-6 PUD condition. The Engineering Department has requested the agreement to join the Special Improvement District if they are formed. That is a fairly standard request on their part. The 6 month lease restriction which did apply to the entire subdivision should continue to be applied. John Kelly representing Joe Dunn and Chip Bishop: The only reason that this application is here is because these houses were moved in the early '60s over to that property. They were originally duplexes. They were condominiumized shortly after the City annexed the property. The 1600 sq ft restriction really only applied to the lot that the Courthouse Condominiums are on. 4 The houses are physically separate. The only way they can practically expand them is separately. This requires separate financing, separate ownership and everything else. If they are to expand any other way, they have to turn them back into a duplex. We have been advised that architecturally that is a disaster. We are going to end up with a box-like structure because we have to have 20 ft common wall. That is the reason we went to the Building Department and said what can we do. They said it is R-6 so go in for a lot split. We then discovered at the very last minute that it wasn't R-6, though the City map said it was. That is why the rezoning request is here. Technically when it is a City-initiated zoning request, you don't require approval of all the people in the area. But we were advised by the Planning Office to go around to all the neighbors and get everyone's consent. It was treated as a private one in that we went around and got everybody's consent. What we presented to everyone was basically what we had before. The reaction of most of the neighbors was that is fine to rezone this but we don't want to downzone our FAR. That is basically the way they felt about it. We picked the 2500 sq ft figure because that is what duplex expansion would allow. Its 1000 to 1300 less than what would be allowed under R-6 without any restriction at all. We voluntarily restricted it. Mr. Dunn and Mr. Bishop feel that if it is knocked down to the 1800 sq ft, they would rather have now what they have and they will work out some way to expand with duplexes. That would be a much less aesthetically pleasing alternative. In reality we are only talking about Lots 4 and 5. The Coates Condominiums are very recent and not susceptible to expansion. It just isn't very practical. The same situation exists with Lot 1. Just recently they put a lot of money into their units and it doesn't make a lot of sense to me that they would tear those down to increase FAR. They are not that susceptible to expansion. We have no objection to the setback. We already have a private covenant in the subdivision which applies to those 4 victorians that you can't build anything on the front 27 feet of the lot. There are 13 different owners over there and we got everybody's agreement to this. We presented that figure on the 22nd of June. The first I heard that the Planning Office was recommending 1800 sq ft was last Thursday. It was virtually impossible for us to go back to all these people and have another meeting and get it all together. So we would request that our original proposal of 2500 sq ft be the voluntary restriction. The R-6 in the rest of the City is a lot more than that. There are plenty of houses larger than 2500 sq ft in that neighborhood. 5 Regarding the PUD: The substandard nature of the lots is something Gannett has come up with at the last minute. As single family residents we would be exempted from that anyway. I again have to say that we did not present this to other neighbors that way. Whether or not any of them would obj ect to that, I don't know. The lot split exemption was set. It was calendared and everything else and then at the last minute they found this map problem. That was something that was not raised at the time. I think they can approve substandard lots. Welton: There is PUD over this entire subdivision and single families are exempt. Duplexes are not. Steve: Right. But since they are condominiumized I made the point that they are not effected with additional reviews. John: They were all duplexes originally. Physically they are no longer duplexes. At some point before my clients bought the property the common walls were removed which took away its duplex character. Under the provisions of the condominium declaration, we will uncondominiumize them and make them two single family lots. That is really the only way it is practical for them to expand. It could have been expanded as a duplex and we want them to stay as the victorian. Welton: Are there any physical duplexes that would have a hardship placed on them if there is a PUD overlay? Steve: There are 3 duplexes on Lots 1, 2 & 3. John: Those are physically and legally duplexes. Steve: Our intent is not to place a hardship on them. We thought it was not an additional hardship. It is a matter of addressing the Lot width situation and the ability for future redevelopment. Welton: But if the duplexes on Lot 1, 2 or 3 wont expand more than 1% of their FAR they wont have to have a PUD amendment. Steve: Right. But that would be done in conjunction with the condominiumization. Wel ton: I am say ing next year if they don't add more than 1% they would not be exempt from PUD and that would be a hardship on them. Steve: Is it a hardship because they would then have to meet the criteria or would they just be subject to public review. They are subject to public review. 6 Welton: Because it is $1570 and sit around for 6 months waiting to go through the process. Steve: The fees are set on the number of meetings. Jim Colombo: Hypothetically, if one of them came in and wanted a larger than that percentage increase, what would you think the process would be for them. Steve: A PUD amendment as well as the condominiumization plan. Jim: How many meetings would you set and what would the fee be? Steve: In both cases the PUD amendment process. It depends on the varying impacts. during the pre application. Welton: Say he wants to add a bedroom. I can't see putting him through any kind of PUD amendment process. can be a one-step We try to determine Steve: The PUD setup with the exemption on PUD which is a P&Z only or a PUD amendment and then there is the condominiumization platt part that can be either be 2 steps be 1 step. I am not sure there is any additional hardship as long as they meet the criteria and I would imagine that they would with a miner extension. Welton: The only staff exemptions are if it is only 1%. Steve: Right, there is a staff signoff if it is less than 1% and doesn't increase coverage of the lot. Welton: And 1% would be around 18 sq ft. Steve: The fee maximum. And then there is the P&Z signoff which is a one-step. on this is $680.00 But often we aren't charging the Welton: It is clear to me that another vehicle other than a PUD overlay is needed on this. It makes no sense to make those conforming lots. Roger: I would not be adverse to g1v1ng them R-6 but the problem is we create non-conforming lots which the code says we shouldn't do. That is what we are stuck with here--PUD or nothing. If the PUD can be accepted or a one-step process, that would be no different than amending the condominium agreement and at the same cost. I don't see where that's a great adversity to the people in the duplexes. David: PUD seems to be overkill. I live next to lot '2. On 7 ..-....- Park Circle there is I don't know how many people per sq ft. Then you go over to the other side and you have got the trailer park which has thousands of people per sq ft. There is only two, 4 and 5, which are these old houses which were moved. When they sold them that is when they took down the things which made them duplexes and they put them on the market. That was '82 or '83. If we could put some restrictions on the square footage and I am not opposed to looking at 25. 18 is ridiculous. They can't even move in 18. They don't want to make them monstrous. Except for the people on the other side of Gibson, everybody around there is crammed in. Looking at Gibson down along King Street is supposed to be R-15(a). That is not R-15. That is an R-6 if you have ever seen one. With the duplexes and everything else that is along that street. So this is all much, much denser than they are. So I think we have got to figure out a way--I won't go PUD overlay. That seems to be an absurd layer of bureaucracy. John: My clients don't care about PUD. I doubt that the Haases would. But I can't speak for them. It may be the concern of some people if their buildings burn down or whatever. The practical thing is that Lots 1, 2 and 3 are really not susceptible to much expansion. The Haases could do the same sort of thing we could do. They could go in and ask for a lot split and modestly expand backwards. Nobody has indicated to us that they want to do any expansion. This has all been done by us. Maybe we can put a PUD on our lots if that is what you want to do. I don't know what the rest of the people in the subdivision are going to say. I just don't want to be in a position with our neighbors that we misrepresented what was going to happen. PUD was not part of our plan when we got an approval. Welton: I am personally very hesitant for PUD overlay on some- body without their knowledge. Steve: If there is a co-ordination problem trying to get it all together so that all of the owners understand what is going on, perhaps it is appropriate to table this until they have got a chance to understand it all. John: Well, we could put those lots in PUD and leave the rest alone. Nobody cares about the setbacks. We have got private covenants that cover that anyway. Steve: To do that, I would at least go to Lots 4 and 5 because they are both in the same kind of situation. Welton: According to code the smallest area that can have a PUD overlay is 27,000 sq ft. John: We have got more the 30,000. done and then maybe we could proceed. I would like to see that 8 -~.~,,",~.,_.~.....,..., .~....~~.._- Welton: I think we can zone it all R-6 and put the PUD only on 4 and 5. That should accomplish your goal and not take away any property rights of others. There is no effect at all on single family, only duplexes. Jasmine: So there is no reason to include Lot 5 in the PUD. Steve: Yes there is. Then they can do a lot split if they want to at a later date. Jasmine: Then if they have no objection and they know about it, we could put that in as a condition of this. John: They signed off on the R-6. Steve: allow to rebuild. It doesn't change the FAR. The only thing it does is them to redevelop that lot--tear down the existing and They would have that ability. Jasmine: How big are the existing structures? John: Coates is right around 1650. There are 4 of them. Ours are around 800 and 1100. Jim: So regardless of the zoning problem what you are planning on doing is bringing an 800 sq ft victorian over 27 ft setback on 2500 sq ft without somehow changing enormously the character and bulk of the building? Joe Dunn: We aren't going to put 2500 sq ft addition on. Chip: What I have planned to do with I have got 1100. I want an upstairs. about 2 ft short of a legal upstairs. Roger: If admitted under R-15 it is worth 2500 sq ft. mine is just go upstairs. Right now the upstairs is John: That is if you box the whole thing. The whole idea is not to do that. Jim: I am trying to imagine how you are not going to do that if the units start with 800 sq ft and bring them up to 2500 sq ft. Chip: First of all the 800 sq ft unit is the one that is already done down below. That's on Lot 1. Ours are going 1050 to 1500. Roger: I think if you put the limit of 2486, that gives you no more than what they give to you right now on this property. John: That was our objective. 9 Steve: If you look at Lot 1 which has those two structures off of Gibson, the existing FAR is a little bit less than 2500 for the two units together. That is why we suggested you do something less. Welton: The two basic questions are how to accomplish not making the new lots non-conforming. A single family dwelling is completely exempt and does not have to do anything as far as PUD is concerned. The other question is the lot size and I hear Roger saying 2486 is a maximum. Jasmine: Theoretically a lot split doesn't necessarily mean additional development. We are doing a rezoning even with a PUD which is giving the applicant more development rights than they would have had previously when the parcel was first annexed because it was R-15. When this area was annexed into the City one of the conditions with the R-15 zoning was that each different building would be limited to an external FAR 1600 sq ft. Or may comply with any applicable FAR regulations at the time of permit issuance whichever is more restrictive. So clearly the intent under annexation was that this was to be an R- 15 with very limited sized dwellings. Clearly the intent under annexation was that this was to be an R- 15 with very limited size dwellings. Now in order to accomplish the lot split and do a PUD you get the rezoning and all of a sudden you have got 2500 sq ft structures. I don't think that was what was intended. John: Let me clarify that and I think Steve agrees with me on this. You have to read that very carefully. what it said was that the unimproved lots shall be limited to 1600 sq ft. Now Lots 4, 5 and 1 were improved prior to the time of annexation. The only one that applied to were Lots 2 and 3. It clearly does not apply to us. We have been through this with the City. Jasmine: Why doesn't it? Its all the same subdivision. John: I don't know. The Planning Office asked that of us. I talked to the attorney, Lennie Oates, who represented Luke Anthony when the annexation was done and he said he didn't even remember it. He said he can't imagine whey he ever would have agreed to it. It says they were going to consider it for high density employee housing too. Jasmine: It just seems to me that the intent was not to have very big buildings in that subdivision and whether it is an unimproved lot or not the buildings that were already there were under that. John: But they did not restrict the building expansion. 10 Jasmine: I understand that. I am trying to figure out why this is all happening the way it was because it seems to me that you are making a significant increase in size in those two dwellings. Joe: The condos got built after that. They were supposed to be restricted. They put in an 800 sq ft basement which makes them the 16 plus 800. They allowed them to do that and call that a storage area so they are already built up to the 2400. Jasmine: I am very unhappy with that 2500 foot limit. Originally it was intended to be small modest buildings and you are making them huge. With all our concern about FAR and very big buildings on very little lots, to me it is another classic example of small lots with great big buildings on them. Welton: It is going to be a lot smaller this way. Most of them would be in the 4,000 sq ft rather than the 2500. David: In the mobile home park right next door to lot 5, there are 3 or 4 mobile homes on this size lot. This was brought in with those restrictions in '76 but in '83 they brought in the trailer park. That was in the City before it was in the County. There has been a lot of changes. I don't think with the size of those lots--how thin they are and how wide they are--that someone is going to build 2500. He has got 1100 downstairs but he can't use the upstairs because it has not got enough height in it. What he wants to do is be able to open up the height. The one next door could put it in back but he can't do too much or he touches his neighbor or he goes into the street. I don't think he could possibly build 2500. It wouldn't look very good and since it is their houses I don't think 2500 is too big. Roger: There is ambiguity built into that Ordinance 69 series '76. It says there "By adoption of the R-15 zoning category for the unimproved lots, the City shall not be precluded from the consideration of the appropriateness of these sites for high density employee housing.. Initially when the small dwellings were put on there, I can see keeping the unimproved lots down to more or less the same scale. But at this point with what is in there, I don't see a problem tending to keep everything to that same scale which in this case is about 2500 sq ft per unit. Steve: Which is considerably larger than the existing development pattern. If you look at it as a subdivision, you say shall we try to retain some of the amenities. John: What it really comes down to is if you develope those like my clients want to as single family houses it is going to have a lot less impact than developing as a duplex. Welton: For example in R-6 the FAR allowed on a 3,000 sq ft non- conforming lot is 2400 sq ft. These lots are almost 8,000. 11 --.---.- Steve: I feel that it is not a good direction to only zone the 2 lots PUD. I can't urge you to go that direction. It is a mish- mash of zoning in an area that-- Welton: Is already amish-mash. This saves the aggravation and hassle for Lots 1, 2 and 3 duplex lots to have to go through a PUD process of one sort or another every time they want to add on a bathroom. John: The only thing that I could say is the lot split exemption that these guys filed has been there for months and months. The first time that the substandard width of the lots was ever brought up was last Thursday. We have been fiddling around with this thing since September of 1986 and it just isn't that controversial a deal. Roger: I move to recommend approval of the rezoning of the Alpine Acres from R-15 to R-6 with PUD overlay for new Lots 4A and 4B and old Lot 5 with voluntary imposed conditions that each dwelling unit be restricted to a maximum of coverable floor area of 2486 sq ft for Lot 4A and 4B. Welton: Just the 4A and 4B and a blanket FAR for the whole subdivision. Steve I would suggest that you make a condition D that says the PUD overlay only applies to lots 4 and 5 and then just rezone to R-6 and take PUD out of the first sentence. Roger: Basically our attitude is that the concept is fine go up to the maximum allowed under R-15 for all the lots, right? Welton: No. R-6 or R-15 floor is the same. It is based on the lot size on the sliding scale. Steve: It is the difference between the duplex FAR and single family if the they were to split. The FAR of 2486 would be 1/2 of the duplex FAR. Wel ton: If they were two single families built on there they could be 3784. As a duplex it would be 4973 and 1/2 verses 2485. So we are taking duplex, cutting them in half and moving them onto two separate lots and getting them more FAR by figuring it that way. Roger: What is one single family on one of the new lots? Welton: 3784. So we are restricting them to 1200 sq ft lots. Roger: So that we are consistent between 4A, 4B and 5. In the 12 case of Lot 5 though the figure would be 2503. John: 100% of the people have signed up on 2500 sq ft. No one is going to object to 2486. I think that is the maximum voluntary FAR restriction for the whole subdivision. Roger: Then I will restate condition A--each dwelling unit will be restricted to the maximum coverable floor area of 2486 sq ft. Condition B being the same as the Planning Office memo dated 7- 15-1987. Condition C being simply saying except that we identify the 39 feet for Lot 4B and the 45 feet for Lot 4A. David seconded the motion. Roger: I put the PUD in with the basic motion. The PUD was on Lots 4A, 4B and 5. Now the condition D that there is the verification of the platt concerning naming of the street either Matchless Drive or Silverking Drive. Everyone was in favor of the motion except Jasmine. Roger: I move to recommend approval of the requested subdivision exception for the purpose of splitting Lot 4 into Lot 4A and 4B of Alpine Acres as requested subject to the following conditions: Conditions 1 and 2 being the same as Planning Office memo dated 7-15-1987. Condition 3 modified to include Lots 4A, 4B and 5 until Alpine Acres is rezoned R-6 with a PUD overlay for Lots 4A, 4B and 5. Jim seconded this motion. Everyone was in favor of the motion except Jasmine. Roger: I move to reconsider the previous motion concerning a signed statement from Lot 5. Everyone was in favor of the reconsideration. Roger: I make a motion amending my first motion to include condition E being that the applicant shall endorse signed statement from the owner of Lot 5 agreeing to being a part of PUD. Jim seconded this motion with all in favor except Jasmine. Welton: The public hearing is closed and the regular meeting is adj ourned. The time was 6:15 pm. eputy Clerk 13