HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19871006
~
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PLANNING & ZONING
OCTOBER 6. 1987
Chairman Welton Anderson called the meeting to order at 5:00 pm.
ROLL CALL
Answering roll call were Jasmine Tygre, David White, Roger Hunt,
and Michael Herron. Ramona Markalunas and Jim Colombo arrived
shortly after roll call. Mari peyton was excused.
COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS
Jasmine: Did you ever find out about the status of the dumb-
waiter at Syzygy?
Steve: It has not been installed yet. I have talked with the
building inspector, Jim Wilson. He said he gave them one month
from the occupancy of the restaurant to install it.
Jasmine: I thought they were not to have an occupancy permit
until the dumbwaiter was installed.
Steve: The building inspector has some discretion in this with
the understanding with the applicant that it had to be done.
Jasmine: And what if it isn't?
Roger: Hereafter can we somehow or another get to the building
inspector that we are very sensitive about these service facilit-
ies for restaurants on other than first floor. And that we don't
think that there should be a CO issued for a restaurant without
those service facilities in place.
Alan: Quite frankly, neither do we. I was appalled when I saw
the building occupied after hearing that you folks had turned
down the request. It happened the same week. I can't give you
any excuse for it. I was appalled that they did not follow
instructions.
Roger: Is there a way of re-enforcing those instructions so in
the future they will be a little more strict concerning this?
Can we do this internally with them?
~lan: We will follow up on this.
PZMIO.6.87
MINUTES OF AUGUST 18. 1987
Roger made a motion to approve the minutes of August 18, 1987
with corrections.
Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor.
LEE STREAM MARGIN REVIEW
Steve: This is a request to build a 400 sq ft addition onto an
existing house at 1106 Waters Avenue. The house is located on a
relatively flat plateau above the river. A new deck was built in
1976 around existing trees that did not need to be cut down.
This addition is located on the south side of the house mainly on
the flat area. Our concern is for the loss of vegetation and
disturbing the river bank which could cause erosion. There are 3
trees that probably can't be saved because of the proximity to
the existing structure. However the other trees that are outside
the bUilding envelope would appear that they could be saved. We
think that it would be possible to relocate the trees that can't
be saved or to replace them on the eastern side. The trees on
the hillside given that they are mature trees, they contribute
the natural forest of the Roaring Fork Greenway and they are
stabilizing the bank outside the building envelope.
A letter was submitted to the Planning Office October 5, 1987
which I would like to present to the Chairman. It is from wayne
Ethridge, Landscape architect saying that 2 of the trees are
diseased with a fungus that is commonly called Moon Blot and 2 of
the trees are 8" trees on the bank. We suggest that the 7" tree
will only be removed if the County Extension Agent is contacted
and it is confirmed that that tree should be removed rather than
treated. It may be possible that that tree still can be saved
and that it be confirmed that that tree can't be saved in writing
to the Planning Office. This would actually be attached to
recommendation of condition of condition #2.
We are recommending 4 conditions of approval. The first one is
with regard to foundation and site coverage plans. The second
one is regarding the cutting of trees and the need to replant
those trees. We think that there could be added to that
something regarding the 4th tree that they would like to remove.
The third condition is regarding the lower deck and it simply a
matter that it either be removed or stabilized. The fourth is
simply aSking that the applicant state the excavation techniques
to make sure that they are sensitive to the environment.
2
PZMIO.6.87
Sunny Vann: There are some problems on the slope that erosion
has caused. Some problems that mayor may not adversely affect
the river itself. The applicant has asked a small expansion to
stabilize the slope in the vicinity of the house to enhance the
value of the property and the preservation of the vegetation
around the addition.
If you look at the survey the site is quite small. It is limited
in its expansion ability by the front yard setback and the
substantial slope on the river itself from the 100 ft elevation
down. The house is currently about 2,100 sq ft which is signif-
icantly less than the maximum allowable 4,000 sq ft of FAR.
Obviously 4,000 sq ft house on that lot would be inappropriate.
The applicant in this case wants to add approximately 400 sq ft
to the existing structure. The only place where he can add that
is in what would be the southern side yard since he can't add
down the slope and he can't add to the front of the structure.
It would be a I story.
The pr imary purpose of the Stream Margin Review is for safety
from flooding to prevent impediment of river flow and to protect
the waterway from erosion, etc. There are a series of criteria
that deal primarily with that. All attempts should be made to
implement the recommendations for the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan.
One of the recommendations is to preserve natural vegetation.
The si te is densely wooded and 4 trees will be requi red to be
removed as a result of this addition. None will have any adverse
effect on the river whatsoever. The 2 small trees that are
located here are approximately 4" caliber. Two of the trees are
diseased. We are proposing taking one out above the stump
without digging it up and without disrupting the slope. None of
the other trees will be removed and a commitment to that will be
made as a condition to this approval. So the maximum number of
trees to be removed is 4, two of which are considered to be
diseased and which the type of disease as indicated by Mr.
Ethridge there is no known cure.
It is our intent to offset the loss of the trees in question by
replacing 4 trees on the property. We will plant 3 medium 2 and
1/2 to 3 inch caliber Cottonwoods on the northern portion of the
site to help further stabil ize the bank itself. Having proposed
to put an 8 to 10 ft Blue Spruce or Spruce tree on the property
in a location to be determined. In our opinion the application
complies with all of the requirements or review criteria of the
Stream Margin Review. There is absolutely no detrimental effect
whatsoever on the river itself. There is no disruption of the
slope. The foundation technique has. been specif ically selected
to preclude any disruption of the slope. And therefore, the
criteria relaying to flooding, work quality, etc. have been meet.
3
PZMIO.6.87
The only thing at issue here is whether or not the removal of the
4 trees in question is inconsistent with the recommendations of
the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan. The site is heavily vegetated.
The loss of these trees should be offset by the replacement of
new species and the removal of the 2 diseased trees on the site
should promote the health of the remaining vegetation.
The implication on #l is that our plans involve disruption of the
slope itself. At this point there is no disruption of the slope.
We will not disturb the slope other than to cut down above the
stump of the diseased half of the twin tree shown outside the
building envelope.
Roger: I have to agree with the applicant in this case. I have
just had to deal with a diseased tree which had to be cut down.
If the trees are, in fact, diseased I have no problem with the
removal of those trees and I think it is healthier for the entire
plot to remove the diseased trees and replace them with new
trees.
steve: Our suggestion was to see if they could be treated
properly and to be saved in that way.
Sunny: Our position whether it is diseased or not is really not
the issue here. Whether or not it is reasonable to allow us to
take down 4 trees to expand this house given the extent of the
vegetation on the site and the fact that we are going to mitigate
that impact by planting new trees on the property itself.
Anything over 6 inches, we have to have a permit for so in
addition to this review we still have to get a permit from Parks
to take the tree down.
Roger: Hopefully this review would encourage the Parks to allow
you to take it down. I would think in the case of a development
that we would have the overall say as to the landscape plen.
Sunny: The other problem with tha t tr ee is you not i ce it is
outside the envelope. If it were going straight, we might be
able to skirt and just leave it. With each year I s snowload on
the tree it is going to be down eventually anyway.
Roger: I just don't see the logic to waiting for it to be a real
problem before you can remove it. Given the location of the tree
why burden the applicant with that problem now? Let them get rid
of that tree and replace it elsewhere on the property.
MOTION
4
,-
PZMIO.6.87
Roger: I will move to approve the Lee Stream Margin Review
subject to the following conditions: #l. As per Planning Office
memo dated September 30, 1987 with condition II being terminated
after the word "understood". Condition #2 being changed "The
applicant shall replant or replace 4 trees to be removed with 3
Cottonwood 2 and 1/2 to 3 inch caliber and I Spruce of 8 to 10 ft
heigh t and a revised site plan showing the r eloca tion of the
trees" shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Planning
Office prior to the issuance of a building permit. #3 and #4
being identical to the Planning Office memo.
Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor.
EXPLORE BOOKSELLERS GMP EXEMPTION AND CONDITIONAL USE
Welton opened the public hearing.
Glenn: There are 2 basic requests. Add 144 sq ft of office to
the Bookseller's Retail store. Right now they have a staircase
in the alley in the back and what they want to do is enclose the
staircase to create some more office and storage space. In the
store right now they are very cramped and need more office and
storage space.
The second maj or request they have is to change the use of an
existing 650 sq ft residential unit to retail space. Their idea
is to have a sitting room where people can sit and look at books
and have some tea and pastries while they are there in the store.
A place where people can spend some time and just relax in the
store.
There are 3 sections in the code which are pertinent to this.
The first is to modify a conditional use, Section 24-3.3. The
second section deals with a change in use of residential space to
commercial space. It is a GMP exemption. And then the section
of the code that is pertinent is an exemption from the allotment
procedures from GMP quota system minor addition. It is a
Planning Director's signoff. The Planning Director has
administratively made that signoff. That is for the miner
addition of 144 sq ft of space..
The basic issue before you is the change in the nature of the
condi tional use. I don I t think there are any outstanding
questions except the issue of parking that we have identified.
Since the time that I wrote the memorandum, Michael Gassman has
recalculated the existing space in the building. Originally in
preparing the calculations of the square footage, it is in the
memorandum of 3,800 figure that included some attic space and
some space that is not necessarily part of the square footage.
The actual amount of space that is going to be there will be
5
PZMIO.6.87
closer to 3,000 than 3,800. So the issue that comes up is are
the 7 parking spaces that are there enough to satisfy the parking
requirement. The way the code reads you are supposed to have 3
spaces for every 1,000 sq ft of space in this district. So that
would be about 9 parking spaces. They have 7 there. You are
allowed to vary the parking based upon your discretion. However
it shouldn't fall below 1.5 parking spaces per 1,000 sq ft of
space. The 7 parking spaces are adequate. In fact there is more
parking at the Explore Bookseller's Store than there is in a lot
of other places.
Finally staff recommends that you grant approval for a modifi-
cation of conditional use and also grant a GMP exemption for a
change in use from residential space to retail space for the
store.
There are 2 conditions and I of them has already been satisfied.
The Historical Preservation Committee has granted approval for
the proposed plans. The other condition is the applicant will
abide by the representations made in this memorandum. We also
recommend that you grant a special review approval for a
variation of the parking requirement from 9 spaces to 7 spaces.
Katherine Thalberg: In terms of the square footage, you base the
parking on the retail space or retail and office.
Glenn: Actually the retail space is 1,600 now and there is going
to be an additional 650 added from the change in use. So you are
looking at about only 2,200 sq ft of retail space. The code
reads you need 3 spaces per thousand square foot for all other
uses. Fewer spaces may be permitted.
Welton asked if there was any public comment. There was none and
he closed the public hearing.
Letters in support of this proposal are from the following:
Walter Ganz, Aspen, Colorado, Al Myers, Vice Chairperson, ^spen
Community & Institute Committee, Aspen, Colorado, Maralee Wardner
and Karen Chamberlain, Director Aspen Writers' Conference.
MOTION
Roger: I move to approve the Explore Booksellers request for GMP
exemption for a change in use to permit the conversion of
residential dwelling unit to a commercial retail space. Also to
approve modification of a conditional use permit 144 sq ft
expansion and a special review approval to vary parking
requirement from 9 to 7 spaces conditioned on the remaining
condition which is #2 which will be renumbered I on Planning
Office memo dated October 6, 1987.
6
PZMIO.6.87
Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor.
RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICT REGULATIONS
Alan Richman: There are a number of things that I am going to
try and do here tonight to try and acquaint everybody to our
recommendation. The reason we are here tonight is that City
Council has directed the Planning Office to re-evaluate the area
and bulk requirements in our residential neighborhoods and to
recommend any changes thereto. This is an action that was
probably long in coming for many members of the community. We
last looked at our area and bulk requirements in 1981 and in 1982
after quite a bit of debate, the sliding scale, floor area ratio
was adopted for the first time and height limit in our
residential neighborhoods was reduced to from 28 to 25 feet.
Given the amount of development that we have seen over the past
year in particular it has become obvious to many residents of the
community that the type of development that is allowed by the
current regulations is larger and bulkier than many people would
like to see it be.
I have provided you with a copy of the results of a survey that
was provided to me by the west end improvement association that
shows that neighborhood voted about 3 to I in favor of taking
some action on FAR. They also talk in that recommendation about
height and setbacks which are some of the issues we are going to
talk about today.
I have named in the memorandum 5 specific recommendations to you
in 5 particular areas. Those are:
I. Reduce sliding scale floor area ratio.
2. Increase setback requirements on moderate to large lots.
3. Establish new requirement for "maximum site coverage".
4. Revise method of calculating what is included in FAR.
5. Adopt clarified nonconforming use/structure provisions.
REDUCE SLIDING SCALE FLOOR AREA RATIO
As you ~now the sliding scale which we adopted 5 years ago was a
comprom~se. It was a compromise that attempted to do a lot of
things. It attempted to insure that the smallest lots, those
being 3,000 sq ft lots within the townsite would have the ability
to build a reasonable size house. It also attempted to allow he
7
.,
PZMIO.6.87
size of houses to increase in relationship to the size of lot but
not on a linear basis but rather on a sliding scale or a scale
that we drop as the size of the lot increased.
I went back to the files in 1981 and 1982 to re-establish the
work that we had done at that time. I discovered that the
recommendation that the planning Office originally made had been
increased somewhat during the process. There were some changes
that were recommended by P&Z and finally some changes by City
Council in Ordinance 82-ll. I have summarized those on page 2 of
the memorandum. They don't go into the standards of detail.
They don't tell you exactly how many square feet to get for each
100 sq ft of lot area. These are resulting house sizes based on
he sliding scale that we eventually adopted.
If you look at the numbers it will be pretty clear that the
Planning Office's original recommendation was 10 to 15% below
what Council eventually adopted with the exception of the very
smallest lots where it increases with substantially less--only
150 sq ft on the 3,000 sq ft lots.
I decided in looking at that work that was done 5 years ago that
it really was not necessary for me to re-invent the wheel--that I
could go out there and survey dozens and dozens of homes allover
again but that research was available in the files. A very
comprehensive bit of work was done by the Planning Commission,
City Council staff 5 years ago in trying to come up with the best
recommendation.
We are recommending that you go back to the original scale that
we suggested. It still represents a reasonable approach to
solving what people perceive as too large a fAR in the west end.
Two alternatives: One would be the approach that we have had in
the R-15b which would be to simply reduce the sliding scale by
some percentage in the R-15b. That was 70% of that allowed in the
other zone districts and as you see, it gets really limiting on
the small lots which was not our problem, of course, in the R-15b
since the lot out there are 15,000 sq ft.
The other alternative would be the curve fitting which I think is
more reasonable than the sliding scale using the 70% ratio. But
again is really a major drop. We are talking about a drop there
of probably 20 to 25% below what is allowed right now.
Our first recommendation would be to drop the sliding scale based
on the original staff recommendation.
-
Alan then showed slides of residences in the west end showing
mass, bulk and percentage of site coverage.
-
'-
8
PZMIO.6.87
Most of the houses that have been built this year are right to
their setbacks and right to their FAR. If you are discomforted
by what you saw in the slides it means that changes to those
particular requirements will change what you see. And will
change the resulting development.
Site coverage on most of the new homes is usually over 30%,
somewhere up to 45%, most of them are in the 30 to 40% range.
The older homes all seem to exceed or most seem to exceed their
yard requirements. The site cover age is gener ally 20 to 30%
range although some of them seem to be significantly higher.
We are suggesting to you changes to the setback requirements. I
am also suggesting this idea of site coverage requirements which
I think can deal with some of the problems that we have been
experiencing.
On a lot of 3,000 sq ft, there is only one proposed change. That
we increase the front yard setback slightly so that the massing
moves back a little bit from people's view but the site coverage
requirement is probably the most important one here. This is
just an illustration of what a 900 sq ft site coverage would look
like. Obviously there could be many configurations in which 900
sq ft could be placed on the lot. What I was trying to accomplish
by establishing a 30% for a 900 sq ft site coverage requirement
was to relate in some way the amount of floor you are allowed to
the amount of floor area to be developed in a 3 story structure.
Just from talking to a couple of architects today, people tell me
that given our height limits it is probably impossible to put 3
full stories of floor area onto any lot within our height limits
and so if the 30% height limit requirement is unreasonable, it is
our first recommendation and that is why you are here to review
it, to hear from the public and make changes accordingly.
For a 6,000 sq ft lot our proposed setbacks as we are
recommending which would be an increase in the front yard from 10
to 15 feet and an increase in the side from 5 to 15 feet.
I think that a site coverage requirement is a more effective tool
than having your setbacks be exactly what you want people to
build to because essentially by increasing the setbacks beyond
what we suggested you are saying exactly where people should be
putting their houses and I think that is going quite a bit too
far.
-.
What we are suggesting here is the amount of lot that can be
covered and a number of configurations within any lot that
someone could do to actually build it.
--
9
PZMIO.6.87
Jim: On your proposed change it says increased setback 15 ft in
the front.
Alan: To 15 ft. Right now you have got a 15 ft rear setback
which we are not suggesting to change and it is presently 10. We
are suggesting that it go back to 15 so it changes from allowing
maximum of 75 to 70 in terms of the building I want.
Jim: So eve ry one of these has to be right now 3 stor ies in
order to build the maximum FAR.
Alan: Yea. I am suggesting that if you find the site coverage
unduly restrictive that--
Jim: But that is what we are looking at right now.
Alan: That is right. That is the recommendation which we made
which would relate site coverage very directly to maximum FAR.
This is an example of a 9,000 sq ft lot and again it gives you an
idea of the difference between the site coverage and the proposed
setbacks. This is where the proposed setbacks really start
making a big difference on the amount of lot that will be covered
and the amount of area between houses that you will be seeing.
On a 12,000 sq ft lot the site coverage requirement is coming
down again. It is coming down to from 20 to 16.6 which I still
think works with the FAR. The 20% which is the general
recommendation that we are making came from looking first of all
at what vail has. Vail does have 20% requirement in place at
this point in time. Although it applies to slightly larger lots.
And of course as the lot gets larger, it certainly gets easier to
meet that 20% requirement. I believe this also applies to their
10 ,000 sq ft lots. Their multi-family districts the site
coverage requirements are 25% in one zone and up as high as 35%
for mUlti-family developments.
As far as multi-family goes I am suggesting that you continue to
apply the sliding scale to single family development in the RMF
zone district as it is now and that side yard setbacks be
increased in the RMF zone.
,......
We are suggesting some what I consider highly significanL changes
to the methodology of calculating FAR which I think will have as
big or maybe even a bigger effect than any of the changes that we
are suggesting to the numbers. The changes can be summar ized
very simply.
-
10
PZMIO.6.87
Number I we suggest that everything within the four walls counts
in FAR if it is above grade.
Secondly as far as decks, balconies, stairways and other similar
areas go we are proposing that they be exempt at the 15% maximum
allowable FAR on the site so those would be in addition to the
FAR provided they are not covered or covered by projection of 18
inches or less.
Thirdly garages and carports we are suggesting excluding them up
to a maximum area of 400 sq ft per dwelling unit. And an
exclusion for sites that have alley access available to them.
This would only be available to them if the garage is located off
the alley. If they don't have alley access then the garage can
be at the front of the structure.
The fourth recommendation is for subgrade. If the area is 100%
subgrade, it is 100% exempt. If it is partially subgrade, it
will count to the degree to which the walls are exposed.
Fifth and this is not part of the language that we propose but I
certainly am recommending it at this point in time is one way to
deal with the volume issue. What I am suggesting there is that
the spaces between 10 and 20 feet you count them at 1 and 1/2
times the applicable floor area and if the space is in excess of
20 feet they count at 2 times the floor area which I think it
takes one step at the issue which Roger has been bringing up
about volume without going so far as to dictate to people the way
they should design their houses from the inside out.
Lastly we are recommending some changes for non-conforming use
structures provisions. Simply because we know we are creating
non-conf ormi ties as a result of these recommenda tions. The 2
most important things that we are recommending in these changes
and these are the changes that the consultant and I came up with
jointly are #l--ina--on non-conforming structures so we repair
maintenance we put on to non-conforming structures without any
as in the past.
,-
Secondly we are suggesting to leave in the residential preser-
vation clause and this is a real important one because what it
means is when someone wants to tear down an existing residence
and rebuild it, it is going to have to be rebuilt within the
allowable floor areas within the allowable setbacks, within the
allowable height limits which means that the community if you
adopt this will not have to live with houses that we have
accepted out there this year for ever and ever. I think that is
a real important recommendation and both the consultant and I
feel very strongly that one.
-
,
II
PZMIO.6.87
Welton asked for Commission questions.
Roger: To sum up my position, I think there is foundation for
our recommendation to City Council that last time around. And I
think that is where the FARs belong as a general philosophical
point. But I believe strongly in the third dimension because FAR
is really at the heart of the problem of bulk. It is bulk and
volume along with the height dimension. The missing dimension is
"H" and we have got to get that in there. I think that is more
importan t than site cover age. So I tend to ag r ee with Alan's
proposal very much concerning in effect--reducing the floor area
the higher you go up and that to me is an interesting concept and
worth looking into.
It comes very close to my philosophy of setting an arbitrary
height at which floor area would be allowed and allow the
developer total flexibility within that figure.
Welton opened the public hearing.
Don Pevehouse, 213 West Bleeker: We have a house that has
existed now that is 900 to 1,000 sq ft. I have thoroughly read
Alan's report to you. Particularly I am concerned about my own
situation as a homeowner. We purchased this property, the
purpose of the zoning I want to point out to you as I understand
it is #l to keep the values that you have and also to promote
orderly growth. And also to keep purchases of pieces of property
within a community that they will know what rules they will be
governed by in the future.
-
The only thing we want to do is add one room to the back of our
house. We want to retain the victorian appearance. We do not
want to go up. Alan has suggested to you to change the front
footage, the setbacks in the front from 10 to 15. But the real
sinker that Alan has thrown at us that would completely ruin us,
he is telling the one with 3,000 sq ft--you can't add anything.
You have got to tear that house completely down by limiting it to
900 sq ft. Actually the only thing that we can do, what you
really are saying, Alan, The position that the Planning Office is
taking is he has taken the position that is highly unreasonable,
probably not legal and is not fair.
We invested in that property thinking that we had another 1,400
sq ft to add to it. We feel 1 ike we should be able to use that
and we feel like when you impose upon us the site coverage
requirement that this is not fair. We perhaps can live with a
reduction of a little bit of the FAR but we would like--you
cannot legislate good taste and I can assure you that we are
going to use good taste when we get around to that point of
improving our property.
-
12
PZMIO.6.87
#2, I want to ask you to move very, very slowly on this because
it is affecting property rights that people have invested in this
community and it is not a dog and pony show.
Dale Potvin owner of property in the west end and a realtor in
town: I oppose the Planning Off ices I s reduction of the FAR. I
feel like limits to utilization of property for the average
family by reducing the size. I think that size is needed if you
are a home owner and plan to live in the west end. It also
devaluates our property which I am very concerned about. That is
one of our major assets.
I don I t think the cur rent FAR is the pr oblem. I feel it is a
function of other things which are basically the volume and on
larger lots and setbacks. And I think that Roger's point about
volume is well taken and I think that we need to address that.
That may be the only thing I can agree with in this memorandum.
And it is not addressed very thoroughly. And it is hard for me
to depict what Alan has in mind in his coverage ratios of 1.5 for
different heights. I think he is moving along the right track in
exploring those areas and I would like to see further work in
that area done.
I also feel that the setbacks be tailor-made to fit the sizes of
the lots a little more. There is an opinion in trying to create
a smaller feeling in scale and I think there is a difference, it
can be done by tailor-made setbacks for lots with southern
exposures and lots with northern exposures. Thoughts could be
given to possibly allowing lots with southern exposures to move
further back on the lot and have less of a rear yard setback so
they are further off the street. Lots with northern exposures
where people would tend to live in the back yard may have less of
a front yard setback thus giving them more utilization of the
rear yard.
I feel that the 15 ft setback is detrimental in terms of garages
and possibly garages in the alley should be allowed to be closer
to the rear yard setback, maybe 5 ft for accessory buildings and
a different distance for principle buildings. That sort of
tailor made thinking for the west end is much more appropriate.
I could see possibly some sliding scale setbacks in 9,000 and
12,000 ft lots particularly in the side yard setbacks. Possibly
maybe when you start to get larger lots, there should be a
sliding scale in setbacks in those areas.
I agree with this gentleman that this issue should certainly be
,. explored very, very thoroughly before any decisions are made
because I think it has very broad effects.
...
13
PZMIO.6.87
Nick McGrath, attorney: I occasionally represent people on these
matters before you. I am one of the few people here who support
Alan and City Council in your desires in reducing area and bulk.
I think our zoning regulations and area and bulk requirements,
unfortunately with price and demand in this community, encourage
the building of too large a home which means that meets only a
minor segment of a market. But we don't need all 10,000 sq ft
luxury homes for wealthy people from out of town.
My main suggestion is perhaps to suggest that we could get a
little more help from the architects. I know that the architects
would be willing to look at some of these things. My main
comments in going through Alan I s memo was for example when he
gets to the site coverage requirement we need architects help
here. How does this help or hinder good design the perception of
space, openness. I can deal with text as a landuse attorney but
I am not sure I can fathom what a site coverage adds or detracts
from an FAR and setback. What I wouldn't want to see you do is
create a lot of tiny or little in terms of square footage on the
bottom tall houses. We don't want that kind of thing. We want
an adequate mix. with some architectural and design help, we can
achieve that goal and not have every home being built that is an
$800,000 or million dollar home.
Ted Mularz, architect: I would like to preface what I am going
to say by saying that I am not adverse to looking at the
situation of FAR and volume but I have a concern as I went
through Alan's report. That is although we are talking a lot
about volume which I think is the real issue here and I apprec-
iated what Roger said except I don't think he had the opportunity
to take and extend that to the fullest. Perhaps he wanted to
but I think that we continue to talk about floor areas and talk
about heights and location on the lot. But we haven't really
addressed the volume of a building. Alan in his report has in
one point talked about we can't get a handle on volume by
anything under 10 ft concept one times the floor area but if you
go over 10 ft it counts at 1.5 times the floor area. And that is
anywhere between this layer of 10 to 20 feet.
-
I can v is ual ize a client coming to an archi tect and say ing "I
want a 10 ft 6 in ceiling". And I say that is going to cost you
the premium of 1.5 times the floor area. "Well, what the hell,
we might as well go to 20 ft." So that extra 9 and 1/2 feet of
floor area really accounts for a great deal of volume. I have
not seen any studies where we have looked at the actual volume of
buildings. I think that it would be helpful if we could take a
look at some of the examples that were put on the slide screen of
old buildings and new buildings just to see exactly what the
volume is and I think we have looked at where they are located on
the lot.
14
~
PZMIO.6.87
Perhaps there could be a sliding scale of side yard setbacks.
Maybe you are located 5 feet away from one side yard while you
are 15 feet away from the other. And the neighbor does the
corresponding thing so you are going to end up with a lot of open
space in between.
Let I S say you are able to maintain the volume that you really
want to develope. Is the square footage really an issue.
Shouldn't somebody who is willing to live with the 8 ft ceiling
be entitled to have more square footage as long as that volume
isn't increased and it doesn't hurt the neighbor.
Jack Frishman, 2nd and Smuggler: I just noticed that I cover 23%
of my site. I think it is very obvious if you saw those pictures
that we have a problem. If you go up North street, you know we
have got a problem. We have to do something about it before all
the developers buy the next 50 houses that are going to be torn
down in the west end. And if you don't do something quickly, you
might as well not do anything. The people of the west end do
want something done about those houses. Five bedroom, five
bathroom houses are not built for families, they are built for
corporations.
Katherine Thalberg: I am surrounded--there is talk about
devaluation of property but houses like mine have been terribly
devalued by the huge structures. There was one victorian in view
from my house was torn about a week ago and the house next door
to me, the snow comes off of the roof of that house and breaks
down the trees in my yard. There are property rights that have
to be considered too, the property rights of existing houses and
I think that there is a proposal by the Planning Office is
excellent.
Maggie DeWolf, 233 West Bleeker Street: I think Alan's plan is
probably a very good one. We have a neighborhood in the we st
end. The difference in the houses being built there now is in
speculation houses that are being built probably for corporations
to buy. It is going to destroy our neighborhood. I think you
ought to make a difference between speculation house and a home
owner.
Welton: I think in our incentives program for historic
preservation, your house is capable of qualifying to be
designated historic. There are allowances made to go over--if we
reduce the FAR here for the older houses, they would have the
ability that a new house could not have of going over the FAR of
going into the setbacks. There are benefits for victorians.
15
PZMlO.6.87
Elizabeth Burgess, local resident: I would like to point out
that I think the urgency of the situation ought to be uppermost
in your minds. The compromises made in 1981 we can see that the
results were not as intended. I think that having had those
years go by shows the danger of doing this and even though we all
know that the regulations like this can't reach perfection, they
are going to need constant review. I think this time around you
should consider forgetting to make compromises and trying the
Planning Office's recommendations and trying in a few years a
stricter approach and them review again.
Jim Curtiss, property owner in the west end: I have an 850 sq ft
shoebox on a 3,000 sq ft lot. Some day I do hope to remodel and
expand. First I would like to say I am fully supportive of this
and I do feel there is a need to create additional tools to deal
with the buildings. Specific comments would be I personally do
no mind giving up a little bit of FAR relative to my site. I am
not sure the FAR issue on the smaller lots 6,000 ft and below are
really the issue that has created the problems. My perception is
the size of the homes from 9 to 12,000 sq ft lots relative to lot
coverage I would like to re-enforce something that Alan pointed
out. If there is a concept for lot coverage, I feel that that
should be predicated on looking at a 2 level structure that would
allow a pitch roof and not forcing a 3 level structure. If it
comes down to a position where if I am dealing with a porch or
veranda and it counts, I am going to enclose it. That will
increase the bulk of whatever I create thereafter. So I would
encourage you to delete that and not really worry about the 18
in. Any type of porch or veranda should be deleted or any of
those items that create architectural interest.
I do like the concept of trying to create a volume and guideline.
I am really not clear in my own mind in what that is because to
me if you deal with footprint coverage, by default you begin to
deal with volumes. I think that idea should be looked at but I
am not clear in what it implies.
Bill Poss, architect: I think Nick I s idea of architects working
with staff is a good idea and I would offer my services but I
think we can go through Alan's memo to get into more detail.
In working with a lot of owners and most of them are locals that
I work with, I find that a reduction in the floor area ratio to
be a little too tight. Just trying to meet their programs is
tough enough with the FAR regulations we already have. I also
that a 10% reduction to most people would be recognizable. They
can't tell whether a house is 400 sq ft too big or 400 sq ft too
small.
16
PZMlO.6.87
You are on the track with site coverage and setback increase.
But I think we have to be careful in this memo. It points out
that they are using less than half of the floor area allowed as
the footprint which would create buildings above and higher which
then penalizes us when we get into floor area calculations and
horizontal projections. It is a double penalty to us as we are
counting floor area.
I also think reducing the garages to 400 sq ft is a little too
small. What we have had in the last 10 years working with that,
when you get a garage of 400 sq ft and you have small floor area,
people wind up parking their cars outside to use the garage as
storage because the FAR is so small there is no room to provide
adequate storage. When we move here we acquire kayaks, boats,
bikes and motorcycles.
I think getting to a calculation of height and penalizing people
or counting as I and 1/2 times is going to become more confusing.
We have to be careful on that calculation.
We have to be careful of FAR reduction in site coverage because
it is going to create a lot more non-conformity.
Mary Martin, 710 North 3rd: We have owned our home for 27 years.
We park in the driveway for 27 years and never had a garage.
Only two years ago were we given a chance to put in a basement.
Basements don't count. And on all this size of that you have
allowed in FAR, you can put in the biggest basement possible for
all those great amenities of a sportsman in this great wealthy
community.
I am appalled that this gentleman over here cannot add on to his
house without any kind of problems. His house has been there for
years. He ought to be able to add a room.
Number 2 is how many spec houses are being built? We would like
to know that. How many are absentee owners in this particular
west end area. It isn't just contained in the west end. It is
going to be allover town. They were surveying at the east end
of Main street this morning. They are going to tear down within
he month almost everything you see possible. To me the land is
still valuable. City Council has authorized up to $4,000,000.00
for open space in the last 5 years. Most open space is tumble
weeds, sage and the thistle. And yet, when it comes to the core
of the City, we are destroying the lawns by allowing a house to
be built so large. Where are the children going to play? They
have to go all the way down to Wagner Park. Why can't they have
a yard? Why can't you put a setback that gives them enough yard
without worrying about the 5 bedrooms, 5 bathrooms, playroom,
swimming pool and everything else within the house.
17
PZMIO.6.87
I think that all of these should have a special review. I have
always felt that the City of Aspen should have an architectural
review board--not for style as much as for just this certain
thing. This kind of board would have solved a lot of this
problem.
Then you site on page 5 about 3 stories. I don't believe you can
have 3 stories. What constitutes 3 stories?
Charlie Knight living in the west end for 11 years: We have just
bought a lot to build ourselves a home. We rejected the plans
that were set for the lot. It was a speck house that was going
to be developed and was going to be along the lines of what you
are seeing on North Street. We decided that that was not what we
wanted. We wanted to be in a house that was a home, a large yard
if possible but yet service our family.
What I am gathering is that the schools that are available, the
parks and all the amenities are for someone else and not for us.
And it really irritates me that there can't be a solution that
helps people like me. The one part that I think that is import-
ant is the fact that we are dealing with--as you look at the
statistics of the lots that are being represented in this table
and the type of building that has been built on the larger lots.
These are 9 and 10 ,000 ft lots. I went to the City today to
tally and I surveyed and did a count of how many 9,000 ft lots
and 6,000 ft lots. There are 66% of the lots that are represen-
ted in these oversize houses are actually in a minority, there is
only 1/3 of those. So between 7,500 ft to 3,000 ft are 2/3rds of
you lot sizes.
What you are seeing is a proliferation of these big houses on a
small por tion of the available lots. The one thing that I do
want you to recognize is that I think there is a major problem
too. And I think bulk, volume and I think that that is what
needs to be addressed.
Mimi Langenkamp, 633 North Street: We have lived at this address
since 1970 and I support The Planning Commission's recommenda t-
ion and I am in agreement with Nick McGrath's comments.
Steven Barnett: A recent homeowner in the west end and I don't
know enough about the technicalities to this but it does seem
that some of the comments of the home owners here really do make
a lot of sense to me. A concern of mine is that this process
needs to be reviewed. Some of the suggestions mentioned here
tonight espeCially about homeowner's review are enormously
helpful. The sense of urgency is important because just between
the last year this seems to be progressing very rapidly.
18
PZMlO.6.87
Marsha Carbone, homeowner in Pitkin Smuggler: One detail I want
to put in here is on a side lot setback to either have a certain
distance inland distance between buildings. My house is about
100 years old and it was one foot from the lot line and someone
built a big house next door to us to within 5 foot from the lot
line leaving 6 feet between us.
Harry Teague, local architect: Everybody has spoken to the
urgency of this issue. I think, however, that the proposals that
are made are maybe even counterproductive to what we are trying
to achieve. The issue here is volumetric. It is not what the
space is used for, how much room in the house there is--it is how
much mass is perceived by the adjacent buildings. As an archi-
tect, the issue is quite complicated. The real solution is one
that offers a lot of possibilities. Some buildings are very
close to one side of the lot. Sometimes there will be a very
massive house right up to the 5 foot setback and so on. What we
want is not to be locked into putting the house dead center in
the middle of a lot. Ideally we want to be able to build with an
ideal volume arrived at with a curve in the nature of what is
used to arrive at a floor area ratio and come up with an ideal
volume. And then have a large amount of flexibility to deal with
vegetation, the adjacent buildings and the front and back of the
lot.
This could be done very simply
floor area--it doesn't matter.
is perceived in the buildings.
volume.
with a volumetric ratio. Forget
It has no affect on exactly what
Deal with it strictly in terms of
The other area that is somewhat counterproductive is the current
height limit which as we have all heard--if you set the height at
25 feet, that means that you can build up to that height with a
flat roofed building you can build 3 stories. If you put a
pitched roof which is somewhat the pattern in the west end, you
automatically limit the possibility of doing 3 story buildings.
So the current configuration--the current height limit actually
encouraged low pitched and flat roofed buildings in order to
maximize their floor area in the structure. What we have to do
is look very carefully at the height limit and figure out one
obvious possibility is--right now the way the height limit is
determined, I realize it is a somewhat technical--but the way the
height limit is determined is that a pitched roof--the 25 feet it
counts half way to the peak of the roof and eave and so that and
that has to be 25 feet. You are allowed to go up to 30 feet
right at the peak of the roof. As I say if you have a flat roof
you can build 3 stories.
19
PZMIO.6.87
right at the peak of the roof. As I say if you have a flat roof
you can build 3 stories.
I am just saying that the current height limit encourages low
pitched roofs. My recommendations are to go with a volumetric
approach rather than setbacks and FAR.
Welton: Alan, your suggestion of going to 1.5 times for anything
over 10 feet is a good first attempt but as Harry has pointed out
and as Ted pointed out and some other people have pointed out--it
is volume. And rather than calculating the volume I think if it
is 10 feet it counts once, if it is II feet it counts l.l time,
if it is 12 feet it counts 1.2.
Graeme Means: It is amazing how Harry and I kept sounding.
Essentially we are agreed. I want to give you a simple example.
And I think it is an example of determination. You determine how
much volume is suited to each of the different lot sizes.
Include the garage include the attic and include all of the
interior enclosed spaces. And let's say that you think that
3,000 sq ft 10 feet high is the optimum for a particular lot.
That amounts to 30,000 cubic feet. If you are happy that is 8 ft
high, you would be allowed to 3,750 sq ft without compr omi sing
the vol ume. I f on the ot her hand you chose to have 20 foot
ceilings, or a 20 foot height you would limited to 1,500 sq ft.
It is a simple as that. And I think you don;t have to worry
about how big the garage is or how much space you have in the
attic. You just very simply relate it to the basic volume of the
building that you are talking about. And I think it would take a
lot of the detail work out of trying to def ine so many of the
things that are in the ordinance proposed.
Wel ton: When I came onto the P&Z, it was because of this same
issue. It won't go away. And I suggested doing the volume ratio
at the time. Everybody said it was too complicated. And we have
come full circle. Now it looks like what everybody wants.
Bob Ritchie, I own a home in the west end: We are an expanding
family and I am very concerned that the direction this is taking
us is in favor of very small homes that are going to be too small
for families with small children. It is going to be very
difficult to live in the west end after some of these restrict-
ions.
The first question I have got is how do you build
house of 3 stories with these site restrictions?
ible with these site restrictions.
a good looking
It is imposs-
Welton: I don't think so.
20
...--
PZMIO.6.87
the cars in the street. Where do you put your kids? Most of the
architects here have worked with this and the clients are not
going to go with 3 story houses with 7 ft ceilings. They are
going to look for 2 story homes with pitched roofs because they
look better. And they are much more attractive to all of us.
If we do that under all the calculations that are in this
proposal--I have run a series of numbers and it turns out that
what we are doing is penalizing the small lot owners much more
than the large lot owners. 3,000 sq ft is a small lot owner.
The assumptions are that people build the 400 sq ft garage which
may be too small. And they build a 2 story house within the
alloted footprint on each of these lots. The reduction you will
see on the bottom column is most severe for the small lot owner.
It is least severe for the fellow who owns the large lot.
The premise for this entire corrective here is to shrink some of
these larger houses. I think is some ways you have missed the
boat. In some ways it is addressed it very well. I am very
concerned that we are moving very quickly in something like this
without fully understanding the ramifications of these numbers.
In summary I think that we need to spend some more time on this
because I think we are penalizing the guy that owns the little
lot and not the guy that owns the big lot.
Welton: As Alan said when we started out, "There is nothing cast
in stone". This is just--they throw something out to the public
and to the Commission to get feed back like we are getting right
now. And I think it is quite obvious that with the 3,000 sq ft
and the 4,500 sq ft lots, the Planning Office is way off the mark
on the site coverage.
My gut feeling right now is that maybe the FAR as they exist
right now are just fine if we address it from the standpoint of
the volume, the lot coverage and some sort of lot coverage ratio
higher than perhaps what the Planning Office says and/or
increased setback--maybe not as much an increase maybe not as
much as the Planning Office.
Frank Peters, North Street: I think the Planning Office and the
Council should give serious thought to allowing detached duplexes
on 3 lots. I think it would help in terms of overall transpar-
ency to the buildings. I think some developers are going to the
big houses of 9,000 sq ft because it makes more dollar value
sense. You should give consideration to including houses that
don't have historic value.
I would also like to point out that there seems to be a relax-
ation in the way bulk of basement is counted. Also I think this
21
PZMIO.6.87
is of concern to some property owners in the west end. There are
some properties in the west end that contain two residences that
are separate--basically detached duplexes on 3 city lots. Right
now the Building Department and the Zoning Department are
interpreting those uses as nonconforming uses. Those individ-
uals have been told they can do nothing with their lots.
Welton: That is not true.
Frank: You can ask Mike Flynn. They have been told they are a
nonconforming use.
Alan: We have followed up with Flynns specifically and we have
clarified it in this proposal that they are not nonconforming
structures.
Frank: Right. That is not the feedback that I have gotten from
certain property owners that it is either a duplex or you really
can't do anything with your property--not a dormer--nothing. And
that really pushes into the bulky building of duplexes on the
9,000 sq ft.
Tom Daily, 200 West Bleeker: I agree that side yards need to be
reduced. We need a little more green area. I am a little
concerned about the square footage and the volume. You said if
you tear down an old home then you would have to conform to the
new regulation which seems to make sense. What happens to all
these property owners in the west end--what if there is a fire?
Welton: You can rebuild them as they were.
Alan: I tried to be as specific as I can about that. The way
this proposal reads--if the house burns down it has to be rebuilt
to the requirements of the code.
Tom: You could be in town with your Mother or maybe your kids
and you need the space. And their house burns down and they need
that space, they would have to do what? Move out to Starwood or
Snowmass? Aspen in the mining days that we like to relate to--
many of the homes had a 3 foot setback. There are a lot of homes
with 3 and 5 foot setbacks. I think that is too tight but we
like our victor ian. Yet here we are going off on some venture
that as your architects all pointed out, we don't know what the
roofs are going to look like. You are setting regulations that
might wind up with all flat roofs, all the homes with railroad
pi tches even if you throw in the volume, you could still have
that. That is probably what you are going to have.
One other point if they don't build in Aspen because some of the
families need the space. Now lots are expensive. They can't
22
.... .~~_~_~_..__._.~_.~.~_______,. ,.___,w_
PZMIO.6.87
just go out and buy a 90 ft lot. They are going to wind up going
down the valley. The County has already approved some subdivis-
ions which I think is the pits. Any new lots shouldn I t be
approved. I am not for growth at all. All you have to do is
drive to Denver, drive by Vail. You can't find a lot in Vail
anymore so they are going up and down the valley. That is worse.
Every time someone builds out of town you have cars driving into
town. People that build in the west end and have decent size
home that they can live in with their kids and a decent size
garage to store their things in--usually the people in the west
end will walk around town. If I was forced out of town, I would
wind up with another car or two. So you are really opening up a
can of worms.
It seems like somebody said "Gee, they are building a big house
next to me. I don't like that big house on one side of me and on
the other side of me". So we are going to jump into all of this
and make all of these changes. You are gravely affecting the
properties.
Charles Cunniffe, architect: The fundamental issue here is
volume. I want to point out that we are also not just talking
about the west end. We are talking about the whole City of Aspen
and all the lots in Aspen--many of the lots are unique--and what
I am afraid of mostly is that the regulations as I read them here
as proposed-is that buildings are being forced into smaller and
smaller boxes in the center of the lot. There are restrictions
in every direction which will result in someone because of this
will build out to the limit of those restrictions. So it is
going to create more uniform looking buildings than we have ever
seen before all around town. For everyone's enjoyment different
properties should be handled different ways. You have to leave
some freedom on the pr ope r ties. The regulations as they are
presented don't leave any room for that.
Jim Martin: This ordinance is written to affect the entire town.
What I hear everybody talk about is really a few houses that have
been built in the west end. That has been the sole topic of
conversation. If that is true then I think the reaction here
tonight should be directed at that type of structure. I don't
know that we should address the 3,000 ft house over on Midland
Avenue. That has not been the source of aggravation to anybody.
I think that you need to be very careful as you go about this
particularly with the smaller lots because the ideal house
designed according to the guidelines that have been set forth
tonight is acute. It is a flat roof with no overhang with no
porches or verandas of any kind. It is going to be an ugly town
if we do this. We are imposing some things on ourselves if we
follow this that we can't live with. I think that the houses
that people have objected to would still be massive even if they
23
PZMIO.6.87
were scaled down. Those houses were drawn to look big. And they
are going to be big. They are not that big inside if you go in
them. It is interesting. The rooms are kind of small. They are
not that big. I argue that any architect in this room can take a
small house and draw it in such a way that it looks huge and that
was the marketing effort that went into those houses and I think
that whatever you do is going to be an overreaction to that
peculiar problem.
John Doremus, west end resident since 1953: In answer to the
main issues of floor area reduction, I think is way too restrict-
ive and I think the only thing that needs to be considered for
lots over 9,000 sq ft. I think that has been pointed out. One
of the things that Charlie didn't point out was that he needs a
3,000 sq ft house for his family. He has got a business here. He
has earned his money here. He has finally able to buy a lot and
he needs a 3,000 sq ft house. He can't settle for 2,400 sq ft
which is what is being proposed. So we have areal gap there.
This is not a GE home. This is a local family wanting to raise
their kids in the west end.
-...."
I think that the standards that are adopted--the R-6 or the R-15-
I think if we want to talk about changing the RMF density and FAR
and setbacks, we should find some justification. You should find
some reasoning to justify changes. I have not heard that about
the RMF and I really think it is out of order and should be
dropped unless someone can explain to me that it really has
application here.
with respect to the setbacks--that has been discussed a lot. But
just think of the short sightedness of what has been proposed of
a 6,000 sq ft lot with a 15 ft yard on all four sides. Totally
unusable. You really have to put your house right in the middle
and you don't have enough yard in anyone of the four sides to
play baIlor do anything in it. It is not big enough. A
variable makes a tremendous amount of sense. Maybe make it a
total side yard setback with a minimum of perhaps 5. So if we
increase it to 15 instead of 10, it could be 10 on one side, 5 on
the other or the larger lots, I would think that an increase
could be considered.
The garages in the alleys and the setback of 15 feet of the alley
doesn't seem to make sense talking about putting garages in the
alley. I would be very upset if I had to shovel 15 feet just
because somebody says "Oh I think 15 feet is good". You have to
shovel your dr i veway eve ry morning 15 feet. It doesn't make
sense. Bill Stirling and lots of other people have their garages
right on the alley. It seems to work. If it works, why not let
it occur that way instead of everybody getting a heart attack
shoveling their driveways every morning.
24
PZMIO.6.87
I think the issue is genuine but I don't buy the panic and if you
look at the two charts which were prov ided to us by staff, you
will notice that if you take the largest new homes chart compared
with the average victorian houses which are not the largest by
the way and throwing out the 225 West Smuggler house which is a
modern victorian and incidentally the smallest on the block, you
get at the average victorian in that chart averages 32.1% lot
coverage compared with 36% for the largest new homes. That isn't
that far away.
The proposal to increase the method of calculating the FAR space
as higher than 10 feet--I think has merit but not at all well
thought out. Take this case for example where you have a choice
of a cathedral ceiling or a flat roof ceiling. The cathedral
ceiling where your string line would be 7 and 1/2 feet from the
floor using a typical 30 degree pitch roof, you would be penal-
ized this portion of your house by I and 1/2 times the FAR
whereas if you use a flat roof with a more typical 8 and 1/2 ft
ceiling which architects tell me is what people in the west side
want when they build a new house, you would have 1.9 foot higher
house with a flat roof and not be penalized. It is absolutely
backwards there. In this case the guy with a cathedral ceiling
gets a 2 ft lower house in the neighborhood but gets penalized.
So I think it has got a long way to go and I agree it ought to be
studied.
Douglas Allen: Ostensibly I think this thing started out as a
result of some big houses being built in the west end on very
large lots. I think we need to know how many large lots exist.
Most of the lots in the west end are 4,500 or 6,000 sq ft. There
are very few 9,000 sq ft lots left and if we throw those out, are
we going to penalize everybody else in the west end with the
smaller lots? And essentially if you follow alan's recommendat-
ions, you have legislated out one story houses. You have done
away with that individuality. You have just about precluded any
one story houses in the west end.
On a small lot if you build a 400 sq ft garage which is really
inadequate then that leaves you on these recommendations 500 sq
ft on the first floor and I see in here that we are supposed to
be able to build a 3 story house but the only houses that have 7
ft ceilings or 7 and 1/2 ft ceilings are mobile homes and modular
homes. You don't see less than 8 ft ceilings even in a tract
house. And 8 and 9 ft ce il ings are certainly minimal in the
price ranges that we are talking about in the west end of this
town. And there is no way you absolutely cannot build a 3 story
house on a flat lot within the height limitations in this town.
So the fellow who has a 30 ft lot and has a garage, he can wind
up with a total of 1,400 sq ft house. That is all he is allowed
25
PZMIO.6.87
to do. And this business of having the setbacks all the way
around dictated, I thought that was given up by land planners 30
or 50 years ago. That was a cookie cutter thing right after
World War II and they finally decided that that wasn't a good
plan. I don't think we should go to that in this town. We are
going to lose all the individuality and we are going to get
houses a lot smaller than you may think because now the mechan-
ical room is counted in FAR and now you can't have a decent size
garage and so the houses are going to be in percentage a lot
smaller than is indicated by these figures.
Sally Roach: I was the owner of 501 West Smuggler. I am no
longer the owner of that property because of circumstances such
as this. I would like to respond a little bit on an emotional
level. One thing that goes on with all these spec homes and so
on--I want to build a home for myself. I bought a lot--one of
the few remaining. I was then subjected to a fireplace law, a 6
month demolition moratorium, Historic Preservation Act, and
finally a cut in the FAR. And I was half way through the design
process and I found that for a 3 bedroom/3 bathroom house, 3,240
sq ft was just fine. I was not financially ready to build this
year. So when all this business started, I am half way down the
design process, it just seems ridiculous to make plans for a
house that I would never be able to build. And therefore
ultimately I sold my lot. And it honestly broke my heart. And
if people are worried about developers coming in that is one of
the reasons they are her e. And secondly I think that Alan's
pictures this evening demonstrate the fact that it is not FAR
that is the problem. Many of the homes that he said this looks
fine or this looks great--many of those exceed the current FAR or
are right on. So I think that the volumetric look is what is
important. And this document that we have been reviewing is full
of superfluous stuff that could be thrown out tomorrow and you
could still solve the problem by looking at the volume and the
mass.
Welton then continued the public hearing until the next meeting.
Alan: I heard a lot of really good points.
Welton thanked everybody for coming and for all of their positive
input.
Alan: The idea of var iable setbacks is something that we were
thinking about but we really couldn't focus on the approach to
it. And I started to hear some ideas about a total side yard
setback makes a lot of sense. The idea as opposed to a 1.5
penalty being absolute--the idea of going up on a scale. There
were a couple of things before the Commission starts to make up
its mind that I need to expound to. As far as the 2 story verses
26
.........-.-,--.-..-.-- -,.....-
PZMIO.6.87
the three story. If it is not possible to design 3 stories with
my subcoverage requirements are inappropriate. And that is why I
said to you right at the start--if they are inappropriate, please
let's change them.
In no way, shape or form am I wedded to those numbers. I want to
make them realistic and correct. There is a reason that the
sliding scale recommendations are changed not only for the lots
of 9,000 ft, 12,000 ft etc. but recommended to be started at the
bottom. And that is because that is the way the scale looks.
The scale essentially builds upon what starts at the bottom gets
you to the point that you are at the top. Now if you don't
change it--Iet's say below 6,000 sq ft, that is fine if the
Commission feels the problem is above 6,000 it means however that
the reductions from above 6,000 are going to have to be much more
extreme to make it work because the thing is going to really
start not becoming a sliding scale but essentially a cap at 6,000
sq ft. The last time a sliding scale was developed was that as
the lot gets bigger, people have a right to larger sizes so again
it is not something that I am wedded to but I want to point out
what happens if you recommend to us that we start the changes
above 6,000 sq ft. That is why I started where I did because we
really didn't make significant reductions at 6,000 sq ft or
below. At 6,000 sq ft it is 400 sq ft and at 3,000 it is 150.
It really starts to get larger as you get into larger houses.
Somebody mentioned having sliding scale for setbacks. That is
what this recommendation is. It doesn't simply say the setback
on all the lots is 20 feet. It says with small lots you start at
5. When you get up to the 12,000 sq ft and 15,000 sq ft lots it
goes up.
The volume thing is probably the thing that I would like to
mention the most about. And that is five years ago when we got
into reviewing the sliding scale and FARs, we all thought we did
the right thing. And the result is the structures that we got
out there. The reason that I am sticking with the sliding scale
is I think you stand a better chance of sOlving the problem by
going into devising something that seems to have some merit but
was the wrong set of numbers than to go to a new approach. I am
really afraid that 5 years from now if we take the volume
approach, people are going to be looking at us and going "What
did they do?".
I want to ask the Commission of they want this to apply outside
of the R-6. That is a question I asked you last week and nobody
said no. I happen to think it certainly needs to apply else-
where. The RMF zone district is the hottest zone district in the
City right now in terms of land development and what you are
seeing in the R-6 right now is going to be repeated in the east
27
PZMIO.6.87
end and throughout this community. I think it would be a severe
mistake not to have these apply elsewhere. I can show you
structures just as big in this district as in the R-6 district.
I think this thing should apply throughout the community.
I did make one error that I would like to acknowledge and that is
regarding the garages. The setback increases that we suggested
were meant and all setbacks were meant to deal with principal
structures and not with accessory structures. The rear yard
setback for a garage is significantly less than the rear yard
setback here and there is no reason to change it.
Someone said "How many vacant lots are there out there?". I
don't think that is the point. Most of this has not happened on
vacant lots this year. It has been reconstruction. I can't tell
you how many houses are going to go down next year but I share
the sense of urgency about this thing. I think it is a real
serious problem.
Ramona: I would like to see a review of your site coverage
recommendation on the lots 6,000 ft and under because I don't
want to see us get a lot of flat roof silos out there. I think
that could very well happen. I would also like to see more
consideration of the part of people who are building in the west
end because it has always been a neighborhood. The scale of the
neighborhood has been constantly increasing. It is true that
many of the old victorians were very large homes. Most of them,
however, were on large lots and they had a setting and a yard
area around them so that the setback approach seems to be
applicable to certain conditions. They did not set right square
in the middle of the lot either so that a variable yard area is a
better approach.
Michael: I have one concern about the nonconforming use provis-
ions as to whether that is going to affect financing. If their
lenders are going to be aware that if there is a fire or some-
thing like that that they cannot rebuild their structure.
Alan: That's the reason that the residential preservation calls
for it in the first place. What we are recommending there is
really standard operating procedure in zoning ordinances through-
out the country that the nonconforming structures and uses when
they are demolished get rebuilt to the zone district require-
ments. It is the only way the community has to eventually see
people building within the limits that they impose. If you make
a mistake, it is not necessary to live with that forever although
you do have to live with it for the life of the building. What
we did was suggest that for lodge preservation we suggested
keeping lodge preservation because of the importance of the
nonconforming lodges and there are only about 3 or 4 of them
28
PZMIO.6.87
left. But that was the only thing that the consultant and I felt
that we could retain that preservation clause and have a noncon-
forming section that had any meaning.
Michael:
suggested,
structures
and borrow
Again, I think if we adopted the regulations as you
basically most of the houses would be nonconforming
and can those people then turn around a go to a bank
money.
Alan: I will definitely follow up on that.
David: We have been trying for the last 5 years to do something
about the massing of the potential scale of the buildings in the
west end. I think the 3,000 to 4,500 and 6,000 lot sizes--I
don't know if there should be any changes to them at all. They
are awfully small. Maybe something in the 6,000 but the 3 and
4,500 are just fine the way they are particularly in the site
coverage and in FAR reductions.
You have got concept in the site coverage that is not bad but in
the real small lots it is almost absurd. The variable setbacks
is a very good idea. We are seemingly getting at the mass. I am
concerned about the buildings still being torn down in the west
end. A long time ago we tried to put through a moratorium about
tearing down some of those beautiful west end buildings and in
the last 2 years they have all gone and I am very concerned that
in the next couple of years we are going to see them all
disappear except for the ones that have been historically
designated and some of the benefactors in town who are willing to
buy one of those old houses and keep it around. Obviously the
developers are not going to keep any of them around as evidence
on North Street. That is really a travesty because what we have
got here is a bunch of people who all live here saying "we are
getting hurt". And what we tried to do with this whole idea is
do something so that we help the local person.
I think that maybe we should look just at the west end and they
should be neighborhood covenants and that we should look at the
RMF as the next one that we look at.
Jim: I really don't buy the sliding scale approach. And I
certainly don't buy the argument that because the slide scale
approach is not worked for the last five years so we shouldn't go
to a new approach but we should amend the approach that didn I t
work in the past. I think that the issue here is not specific-
ally FAR. I think that we have come to that conclusion overall.
I think that the volume approach is the one that I would prefer
to see and I think that your asking for help is certainly approp-
riate and I think that there are several architects in town as
29
PZMIO.6.87
well as on the Board that will be glad to help you with that
appr oach .
I have problems because with the site coverage as we have it now
even on the largest lot at 15,000 sq ft you have to be a 3 story
building to get maximum of 4,000 sq ft on it. That is purpetuat-
ing something that can't be built to begin with because you can't
get 3 stories on.
I would like to get away from the cube design. That is what we
are doing is pushing this thing into a cube and pushing it up.
Also with the waiver FAR at the moment which includes porches,
etc. we are in giving the incentive to not build any type of
relief to the structures. I don't think 18" on the porch relief
is enough. I think that any type of usable porch in a snow area
is going to be at least 3 to 4 feet. And I think that we should
either exempt porches totally or at least put a maximum limit
them to 4 ft.
I think that if we are going to put any type of site coverage
requirement on here that we are going to have to take a real good
look height because it just isn't going to work under the
parameters that we have. Garages should be exempt from FAR if
they can be accessed off the alley and the setback should be
drastically reduced on that.
I just see this as not as an FAR issue as much as a volumetric
issue with relief to the facades of the structures. I think that
the buildings that are being objected to are not because of the
FAR but because of the style in which they have been built. I
think a comment was made that they were reduced in size, they
would still look like large buildings and that is true.
Jasmine: I agree with Alan's general approach. Volume or
exterior cubic measurement is most important. Some flexibility
is necessary to avoid dictatory architectural style. The
setbacks must be established to protect existing homes from being
overwhelmed by new spec houses.
Roger: I agree to a large extent with what Jim just said. I
don't think FAR in and of itself is the problem. I think volume
is the problem. And if it is decided that the FAR should be
reduced, we spent a lot of time in 1981 coming up with the
sliding scale and it made a lot of sense then. And I don't see
reducing it beyond that.
I have got to say we have to somehow or another figure out a
convenient way for everyone to understand the volume. I hear
from some of the architects that it didn't seem to be that much
30
PZMIO.6.87
I have got to say we have to somehow or another figure out a
convenient way for everyone to understand the volume. I hear
from some of the architects that it didn't seem to be that much
of a problem for them to figure that out. We just have to figure
out the rules that would work for them.
Concerning porches, etc. right now we allow 15%--
Welton: Uncovered decks don't count.
Roger: I think the porches if they are open should come within
that 15%. I don't mind covered open sided porch. Garages on the
alley, we should look very closely at setbacks of accessory
buildings like garages on the alley. As far as I am concerned
garages should be closer to the alley. If the plow goes through
first they will still get a heart attack for digging out the
plowing up on the garage door. 5 ft still may be a little too
far.
As far as increased setback requirements, in one hand yes if we
have no way of making them variable setbacks from the structure
on the next property. Maybe we have to look at increasing the
setbacks. I would prefer allowing as much flexibility for the
.', architect to put a restricted volume on that property as
appropriate and I would really like to see a minimum distance
established between bUildings.
Establishing new requirement for the maximum site coverage: I am
very wary of that. But I am not saying it is impossible.
Revising the method of calculating the FAR--this goes into adding
height dimension to that and I am thoroughly in favor of that.
As far as the residential preservation: I agree with that
totally if the object of the destruction is to rebuild a new
house and get the new house in total conformity. However, if by
accident or something beyond the control of the occupant destroys
that house--maybe the rebuilding of the house within the new
setback requirements but allowing them the volume they had
previously would be a way to do it as opposed to building over
the old foundation.
Welton: My feeling with the FAR is maybe allowing somewhere
between what the P&Z resolution allows and what the Council will
ultimately pass. Something in that neighborhood. FAR everybody
agrees it is not the FAR, it is the volume. I offer a suggestion
for doing that. You could fill the house with popcorn and
measure cubic---I don't care. The Building Department is not
going to like it but as an architect I know it takes a half an
hour to do a square footage calculation of a really complex
31
PZMIO.6.87
I believe the coverage is far too low on the lower end of the
scale--30%. It is far too low for 3,000 and 4,500 and probably
they need to be adjusted upwards all the way up the scale to give
more flexibility. By far too small a footprint in the low end.
I like the idea of a variable setback.
As far as the detached garages--if you are thinking of having a
garage that is attached to the house it is going to have to be 15
ft from the alley. If it is a detached garage then it can be 5
ft from the alley. But you have to have 10 ft between it and the
building.
I think that porches and verandas should be exempt up to 15%.
That balconies can be exempt up to a 3 ft overhang is minimum for
any kind of snow protection.
Welton then continued the public hearing until October 20, 1987.
RESOLUTION III
Jim: I make a motion to adopt resolution ill.
Roger: I just want to enter one thought and that is of the
realization that the Planning Office, in dealing with the
developers, there are bound to be conflicts come up and things
like that and as far as we know the Planning Office is handling
itself very well.
Welton: I blew up at the Planning Office today.
Ramona seconded the motion with all in favor.
Meeting was adjourned.
Time was
/
.42.
:zz__ ;//YA~~
carneY;?eput9~""~~ ..
32