The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutminutes.apz.19911217 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17. 1991 Chairlady Jasmine Tygre called meeting to order following an on site visit to the Marshall/Hallam Lake site. Those in attendance at this meeting were Tim Mooney, David Brown, Sara Garton, Richard Compton, Bruce Kerr, Roger Hunt and Jasmine Tygre. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS No commissioner comments at this time. STAFF COMMENTS There were none. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were none. MINUTES NOVEMBER 19. 1991 Bruce made a motion to approve minutes of November 19, 1991. Roger seconded the motion with all in favor. MARSHALL HALLAM LAKE BLUFF ESA REVIEW Kim: Made presentation as attached in record. Roger: What did the Board of Adjustment approve? Kim: The rear setback for the R-6 zone--I think it is loft--this is a cut away now and part of the deck goes out to here. 32 inches of it ranging to 54 inches at the far end. 54 inches at the top end. But within what is considered the setback for the R-6 zone the deck exceeded the height limit at the inside edge of the setback by 32 inches. So what the Board of Adjustment did was approve a variance to allow this portion of the deck which is above what would be required or regulated minimum or maximum height above grade. They allowed this to be above grade in the setback. And in reading the minutes they approved this variance based on the fact that it was already built. PZM12.17.91 Roger: Did this originally not get a permit because it was considered landscaping or something like that? Kim: The contractor did not go into the Building Dept and get a building permit. Whatever reasons he misunderstood or maybe--I have no idea. It just got built. McMahon: The applicant is involved in litigation with the contractor. In his deposition he really didn't give any reason why he hadn't. He recognized his responsibility for doing so and admitted that he could have lost his license but he never got a building permit. And the first inkling that the applicant had about that was upon her return from out of town when she saw the red tag on the spa. From that point on we have been in the process of trying to obtain a building permit. The first thing that was required was the minor development review by the Historic Preservation Committee. That took place in August of 1990. And was pretty much resolved in co- operation with the Tom Cardamone of ACES as far as the landscaping. It was the same concern. It is my understanding that it was the same screening from Hallam Lake concern that the ESA Ordinance is concerned with. At that time the applicant worked with Tom and Roxanne to come up with a landscaping plan and put in over a thousand dollars worth of landscaping. Then they re-applied for a building permit after the Historic Preservation review was finished and at that point is when I got involved. Ronnie came to our firm and said "We have been told by the Building Dept that we are going to have to get a variance because a portion of the deck protrudes above grade". I then met with Bill Drueding. I don't think that Kim was aware that I had met with Bill Drueding and had commenced the variance process and I was not aware of the ESA Ordinance having passed. We got the variance and went to get the building permit after the variance was approved only to discover that the Planning Office wanted us to go through this ESA review which of course had meanwhile become an ordinance while all this other business was going on. We have met 5--1 thought we had met 6 of the requirements of the ESA review. I thought the concern was that nothing be above grade within the 15ft setback. And nothing is. It is at or below grade. The way Kim has it addressed within her memo is that it cannot be above or below grade. 2 PZM12. 17.91 This is not sticking way above grade. To the contrary. It has been dug down into the slope so it is below the grade. with respect to the first requirement that nothing be built below the top of the slope. There is nothing that we can do about that. It is already built. And about 7 or 8ft of the deck--only 32 inches of which is above grade. It is already in. Had the building permit been obtained by the contractor as the law required him to do at the time that this was constructed this project would not have had to go through this review. I think that this is the mitigating circumstance in this case. The special review requirements for anything built within the 15ft setback I think that we meet all of those. Although the Planning staff has recommended that the spa deck be moved back we would oppose that for 2 reasons. The first of which is economic. There is no way that the thing can be dug up and filled in and then re- constructed back further away from the setback line. The second reason is that if, in fact, that was done even if you could afford to do something like that, it would put the spa back almost out the back steps of the house within 13ft. There would only be 13 feet between the spa and the rear of the house. The second criteria of the special review requires that any intrusion into the top of the slope setback be minimized to the greatest extent possible. I think we have done that in this case by way of the extensive landscaping that was done and the fact that it is set down into the site as opposed to sticking way up in the view plain from Hallam Lake. The 4th criteria--the landscape treatment to screen the structure has already been done. That has been in place since August 1990 and met the approval of Tom and the Historic Preservation Committee. I feel that the 1st condition--the fact that a unique condition exists on this site--the strict adherence to the top of the slope setback will create an unworkable design problem. I think that that one is certainly met by the fact that it is unworkable from the standpoint of being too close to the home as well as being economically unworkable. The only part of the spa that is within the setback line is 7 or 8 feet of it and the other parts of it are back in on that setback line. We would like to say that we certainly don't condone what happened here. But it was something that was beyond our control at the time and we are basically just the victim of the circumstances that occurred. Sara: I have a hard time believing you are the victim of circumstances. I think if you own property you know that there is a responsibility as the property owner. I am sure Ronnie knew she was an historic preservation listed. If you have any work done on 3 PZM12.17.9l your home you have a responsibility of the person working on that home to be sure that whatever he is doing you have got to know that your contractor is insured and pulled a building permit. If I drive a car I know the state laws. I know I need insurance. I need a driver's license. I know that car needs to be registered. As a property owner you have a responsibility to fulfill those obligations as a property owner and follow the rules of the community and the law and to mete it to the building contractor is negligence of the homeowner. I just have a very hard time believing you are a victim. You have the responsibility as the homeowner. McMahon: I don't disagree that the homeowner has a responsibility. But I think that when the homeowner hires a general contractor to do a job, it is not unreasonable to expect that the contractor would do all that he was supposed to do in conjunction with the project. He could lose his license. There is a statute on the books in the Municipal Code requiring the contractor to get that. The fact that the homeowner was unaware that that had not been complied with--I am not saying that totally mitigates the basic responsibility--but the fact of the matter was it is not the homeowner's responsibility to pull the building permit. It is the general contractor's and he didn't do it. Sara: But that permit has to be posted on the building. I feel that it should come under the Hallam Lake ESA review. It needs to adhere to that. Bruce: Staff, does the Building Dept have any problems with this spa deck other than the fact that it is within the ESA? In other words if this had been constructed properly-- Kim: Because they don't have a bona-fide permit to be following up on it and making inspections on it. I don't know if they have addressed structural issues but it would be my guess that they haven't yet gotten to that point because they haven't gotten the permit routed through zoning successfully yet. zoning is the first step. Bruce: The reason I ask that question--if at some point in time I come to the conclusion that maybe it is OK to leave the spa deck there--I haven't decided yet--but I would be interested to know if there is other problems that the Building Dept would have with the spa and the deck that requires it to be torn up anyway. Then I might be more inclined to say yes if they are going to have to tear it up anyway, let's move it back towards the house. But if the thing is OK the way it is except for the fact that it is within this ESA then that is maybe a different situation. 4 PZM12.17.91 I am somewhat more sympathetic towards this applicant than Sara just expressed. I personally have been through some of this nightmare of trying to wade through this morass of city rules and regulations trying to do what seemed to be fairly insignificant kinds of things with one's own property. And I guess what I would be interested in at this point is what Tom's attitude is toward this spa deck that has been there for a year and a half and what impacts it has had on what we have been trying to protect for the last year. Tom Cardamone: Maybe 3 general comments to see if I can get to an answer. The first matter of your concern is the building permit. All that is concerned about the spas or pools or whatever around Hallam Lake is the drainage of the material from the pool-- chlorine etc, hot water without anything in it can have devastating effects on plant life. I asked the contractor if the drainage was into the storm sewer system. the answer was yes. McMahon: The contractor assured me that it was a closed system and did not drain into the lake. Cardamone: When we first talked about this ESA my concern was that when one person started moving forward towards the lake with building over the bank and down the neighbors would start to do the same and on a small scale that has happened with the neighboring fences moving forward in reaction to this. If the deck stays where it is right now I imagine that the new neighbors as they buy in will continually want to move forward to protect and create some sort of screening. Another point in terms of the below grade. It is sort of an unforseen and unexpected kinds of projects that I think that is meant to protect us from. From literally houses that are built underground glass on the lake side. In fact one of the neighbors was starting to design a house like that--excavate the hillside away and drop the house down one and a half stories with glass. As a representative of the ACES trustees we always have concerns about setbacks and protecting our setbacks. In the case with the Board of Adjustment I probably would have asked for the--just to be consistent with all the neighbors--ask for the 32 inches to be taken off because that seemed like a simple and inexpensive adjustment to make. 5 PZM12.17.91 We went through Historic recommendation was to screen and that has happened. Preservation discussion and my it in accordance with ESA standards Bruce: You are satisfied with the screening that is there now? Cardamone: Yes. It was what I recommended. Richard: I would like to quickly review with staff. There is going to be several layers of noncompliance here. The first one being not obtaining the building permit. And if they had gone in for a building permit, there are certain setback requirements which the actual construction failed to meet and that is the 32 inches? Kim: Height above grade at the setback point. Richard: And that there is a 15ft building setback that was in place at that time? David: It is 5ft for accessory buildings. McMahon: The 15ft was set by the ESA ordinance in November of 1991. Kim: That is not a setback from the property line. That is the setback from top of the bank. David: We are talking about the pre ESA rules. There weren't any setbacks from the original line at that point. Just from the property line--the 5ft pertains to the-- Kim: It did not conform with that. Richard: It didn't even conform with that. That is why they had to go to the Board of Adjustments. Jasmine: In other words it didn't conform with the setbacks before the ESA. McMahon: Which was the purpose for the variance for the 32 inches. Richard: That's the basic theme of this is that your multiple wrongs do no make a right. And that in essence if we allow this variance then we are Ok'ing the improper conduct of the contractor. without prejudice one way or the other to the owner, we don't know whether she was ignorant or cognizant of what was going on. It doesn't really matter, I think, in this case. David: Ronnie, just a couple of questions. Have you done any work on your house previously that required a building permit? Have you ever remodeled it or anything like that? 6 ~.__.___.-J__________ PZM12.17.91 Ronnie: Probably in '72 or 3. And I hired Dick Arnold. And I am sure he did whatever he needed to do. David: At the time you planned this was Mr. Yon Brewer the architect of this from the inception? Was he on board originally? McMahon: No. Ronnie: No. He came over when they were to do the hot tub. He just said "Oh, just let me draw these plans-- David: That was before the construction. Ronnie: And then John Dyer looked at the plans and he said "OK, great" and that was it. I paid him the money that he wanted and I just really-- David: You paid Yon Bur what he wanted or Dyer? Ronnie: No, no. Yon brewer just--you see I also hired John Dyer to do a heating system in my house to redo the heating system because it hadn't been done since the '40s and also the foundation. And the other thing was the hot tub. McMahon: Then what happened from what I understand it and I was looking at the form today to review it is that Ronnie had been working with John Dyer who was doing some construction in the neighborhood. Ronnie: Yes, he was working across the street. McMahon: And Jim Yon Brewer just happened to stop by one day when they were in the process of the construction and he said to Ronnie "I really don't think that that is going to look as nice as it would look if you put it down further so it is not sticking way up in the air." He drew some sketches and Ronnie said "Yes that looks good." So he was not involved until after the process was underway. Ronnie: He has been a friend of mine for 20 years. We is a real qualified architect. He has done a lot of things in town and he didn't charge me to do that. It was a friendship thing. And then later on after I came back from the trip I found out that--I didn't really know what a building permit is. And then have that red label thing and I called John Dyer and he said he would take care of it and that was it. Roger: I tend to align myself a bit more with Bruce under these circumstances. I don't like it. But I can understand from the 7 PZM12.17.91 applicant's point of view sort of what happened here because this could almost from the layman's point of view be almost considered a landscaping type of thing and putting in a walkway or something like that. So I can see why someone who just owns a home and wants to put a little spa in and they don't think it is a great big deal what's in the ground and it is landscaping and that type of thing and why they should think they need a building permit. I don't like the fact that it happened but by the same token the fact that it is the spa itself is predominantly below grade and I assume what the ESA partially was getting after was site impact on the Hallam Lake area--my tendency is towards not letting this go at this point. But my tendency is towards OK approving what is there recognizing the fact that it shouldn't be there but by the same token after the fact it has had some Board of Adjustment approval, some HPC approval and some input from the Hallam Lake ACES point of view. My tendency at this point is to approve it and in such words that this sort of thing doesn't happen again. Then what would the community benefit by moving it if indeed it is well screened or if it needs better screening, that's what we should be looking at now is to how to make this at least more acceptable under the ESA guidelines. And I realize it can't qualify specifically under the ESA guidelines but given the time frame that it happened in and I gather it started before ESA was really in place, is that correct? McMahon: Oh, 6 months before. Yes. Tim: I would like to find out--you mentioned that you were in litigation with the contractor? Is it because of this hot tub? McMahon: It is because of the hot tub. He is suing for his--the balance that is due on the contract. Ronnie's defense is "wait a minute. I have incurred all of these expenses trying to undo the mess that you got me in by failing to file the building permit". Her fees have been incredible. We have gone through the variance process and we have gone through this process in addition to defending of the law suit. And that is what the lawsuit is basically about. He is saying "Pay me". And she is saying "No way am I paying you for a botched job. It has done nothing but cause me aggravation". Tim: And he did get a building permit to do the foundation work and the other construction that was going on and didn't get a special-- McMahon: I don't have any idea. Ronnie: No. Not that I know of. 8 PZM12.17.91 David: He didn't get a permit for the foundation work? Ronnie: I don't think so. McMahon: To Kim--Have you checked the Building Dept file? Kim: No. I wasn't aware that there was any other work going on at the house. McMahon: I don't know that either. It certainly wouldn't surprise me if that is the way he operated. Ronnie: The cost of my lawyer's fees now I would owe him if the spa is to stay. a mess. It's been a nightmare. is so far beyond now what It is just--it is really Tim: I went and looked at the site. I couldn't go with the group because of another appointment and I also went down to ACES and walked out because I knew where Ronnie's house was before I went and went into her yard and looked over the fence. And I kind of scanned the horizon there to see if I could pick it out and see if I could see any kind of cuts or discrepancies in the landscape. I recognized where it was and I couldn't really see anything that was an eyesore. I thought that the landscaping did close it in and shelter it. And I think I kind of don't mind the design the way it is down. I am kind of more disappointed in the contractor in his behavior than I am in your behavior although I think they are somewhat linked. I just don't know if I want to see the structure dug up and moved. I don't think that is necessary. I think it is crazy to think that 32 inches is going to satisfy the public need by taking that off the deck. I am interested in knowing that it does comply with the standards of building inspection and it will work and no one will slip off of it and fall down the bank or slip into the tub or it is not going to drain and overflow and destroy something that might scar the area there. I am more interested in seeing the City pursue the contractor and find some way to make him responsible for what's here. Jasmine: I am one of the people who were part of the site visit today. I would like to say that part of what concerned me about the hot tub location was that projecting out as it did the deck does seem to project a great way out from what the natural contour of the slope was. And so much so that the placement of the hot tub has caused the neighbor on the right to put his or her fence out further into the property line to screen his view either of your 9 PZM12.17.91 hot tub or maybe it is your fence. fence on the other property. But it looks like it is the What Tom had mentioned before which is a concern of ours is that everyone wants to start creeping out there and then more and more structures start coming into this area. I think the way this happens is very obvious when you see what happens to your hot tub and what happens to the fences on this side and what is going to happen to the fence on that side and people building out. So I share a lot of the concern about that kind of build out. I don't think it is really relevant whose fault it is. This has happened. And it is there and we have to deal with it. What I am trying to say is I would really like to see the hot tub not be there at all. Under the circumstances I would like to propose a compromise which would be that I think that the moving of the hot tub or the destruction of the hot tub would be a very onerous thing for the applicant. But I think that either a removal or re-design of the deck which would cut off part of the deck and bring a lot of that back might mitigate what is happening to the neighbors. Although I would like to see the tub not there at all I think under the circumstances I would be willing to accept some kind of a compromise design that would minimize the effect of that projecting deck. McMahon: To address your concern about the neighbors now reacting and doing things to compensate. It would seem to me that anybody that would attempt at this particular point to do something would be required to go through the same ESA processing. Jasmine: Yes, but you see the neighbors want to have a natural view and not Ronnie's hot tub. That has already been spoiled. They now look at a hot tub instead of natural vegetation. And so this kind of thing without necessarily anybody being a villain on it tends to feed upon itself. McMahon: But isn't that what the ESA is designed for? Jasmine: Yes, but you see you are in violation of the ESA. What I am saying is not to try to assign blame but to try to see what we can do to prevent more of this encroachment. That is my suggestion. I don't want to be unduly punitive but I really think this is a very serious situation. We worked for a very long time on these regulations because there is a natural tendency for everyone to say this is a really beautiful natural habitat and I want it all to myself and I don't want to see anybody else's stuff and I want it to be right there and there are conflicts between 10 PZM12.17.91 property owners who live along that area and I am just trying to find a way out of this for you. McMahon: I am aware of that. The point I am trying to make is that any further development now that the ESA is in place is going to have to submit themselves to this ESA ordinance. Jasmine: Yes and all of these people are going to come in and say "This is in violation of the ESA and you passed it". We are setting a very unfortunate precedent here, and we have to be very, very careful. McMahon: I understand that and the only point that I want everybody to keep in mind is that we got caught here because we already had it in before the ordinance was passed. Had Ronnie done her spa deck in the Spring of '91 instead of the spring of '90, it wouldn't have happened. We got caught between-- David: Ronnie, you mentioned you have a retail store in town. Ronnie: Goldies and The Street Kids. David: Have you ever done any remodeling in those stores? Ronnie: No. David: The reason I am asking those questions is I am trying to get a sense of your experience with the Building Dept here. An architect recently mentioned that 20 years ago in this community an architect or and attorney or a planner by themselves could do any project in town. Now it is almost impossible to do any project without an architect, a planner and an attorney. If you look at the audience you will see all three. There are a lot of hoops to jump through in this community. It is one of the more difficult communities in the country to do construction activities in as all of us in the business will readily tell you. But there are many benefits in the community to those people who own here in the preservation of their quality of life and the environment that is here and so it is a balance and a very delicate balance. It is difficult to preserve. I am inclined to defer to the recommendation of the Planning Dept at this time primarily because I think it is a joint responsibility of the owner and the consultants on a project such as this to meet the requirements of both the Planning and Building Dept. And I think in an environment such as existed a year and a half ago with restrictive ordinance like this coming into place I don't know, I wasn't there but I could easily see that it might have been in the 11 PZM12.17.91 contractor's mind to rush things without obtaining and going through the process fully. I think you having done remodeling on your house before being a homeowner I think there is a good chance that you might have been aware of the permit process. I know the contractor is aware of the permit process. I agree with Richard--two wrongs don't make a right. I think that the rules are there to prevent harm to the community as well as harm to the homeowner. I notice that there are a couple of things in place on that project now that may be life threatening things from the Building Dept's standpoint. So I think a little bit of re-work to the project might be beneficial to you, your guests and the community as a whole. Richard: A couple more historical questions. That ESA was passed about a year ago. Richard: And how long had the discussions and the problem been underway between ACES and the neighbors and the city prior to that? Cardamone: May. Richard: So at about the time that the spa was built was when it began. Jasmine: There were public hearings as well about the ordinance. Kim: Yes. We had three separate meetings here. Roxanne: There was a lot of media coverage on it too. Richard: And that had there been discussions between ACES and the people on the bluff before the official process began? Cardamone: with some of them. with construction workers-- Richard: Even before they were in place. Kim: The Moore's--the Moore's lot split. Richard: So that meant--it seems the potential was there to know at the time this was built there was already discussion underway about the problem of activity on the bluff and whether Ronnie was aware of it or not. Bruce: Should we decide tonight to accept staff's recommendation and turn down this applicant, is it right then that the applicant has remedies to appeal our decision to city Councilor what happens? 12 PZM12.17.91 Diane, Planning: I don't have an answer to that. Bruce: And another potential remedy not as it relates to the relationship between the applicant and the City would be that the applicant may have remedies against this contractor should this be turned down. McMahon: There might be a remedy. that he doesn't have any money so nothing. But the fact of the matter is what is the remedy? There is Bruce: The reason I asked those questions I have already indicated that I am very sympathetic towards the applicant in this dilemma that we find ourselves. And one part of me really wants to say it really is no big deal. We are just talking about a little deck and the spa out there in your back yard. But I must say that I have very grave concern about us tacitly approving the wrongdoing of a building contractor. Thereby, in effect, encouraging folks to ignore our City codes and to take on this attitude of "Let's put it in and dare the city to find out and make me take it out". Whatever it is. Whether it is a spa, a deck added onto the house--whatever. We, in effect, encourage that kind of activity if we approve this. So I must say I am very sympathetic towards your situation but I dot have this grave concern about the integrity of our codes. And our job is to interpret those and enforce those and at the same time try to be equitable about things. And all of us now are sort of in the same kind of dilemma that you have found yourself. We need to do what is equitable but also be protective of the integrity of our code. I don't know yet where I am going to come down on this issue. Sara: I happened to mention this at the site visit too and I feel sorry of Ronnie. I can see what has happened but I concur with Bruce that we have a responsibility to the code but also I feel a strong responsibility to my community and that is why I am on this Board to represent that. We have precedent too that has been established. That is the appeal by the neighbors down on Sneaky Lane with what was happening on the lot above them. The same thing happened. They went and dug out over the slope for a patio and it was all against what had been originally approved when they did that lot up on the Taggert lot split. They appealed to city Council finally it was so--because of different questions and the Council ruled in favor of the original trust and faith that had been imparted during the hearings with the 13 PZM12.17.91 neighbors below on Sneaky Lane with what was going to go on on the slope above them. Out of all of these hearings we have a trust with Hallam Lake and the rest of the community. Hallam Lake is not just ACES. It is the community preserve. We worked so hard on that bluff review and building permits are--I am sorry--as basic as a driver's license to me. So I just have to say I am sorry if someone thought it was being pulled--it was not. And I feel there is precedent with that ruling on the Taggert lot split and what happened on that bluff above that. I have to rule against this. McMahon: I just want to re-iterate again that we understand what the purpose of the ESA thing--ordinance was for and we completely are in sympathy with your obligation to make Hallam Lake a nice place so that it is a wonderful asset to the community. My only point is that by--first of all I don't think that you are setting a precedent here by granting us approval because anybody who comes in in the future is going to have to subject themselves to the ESA review prior to commencing their project. The point I am trying to make is that the ESA review--granted the building permit mechanism was definitely in place when this whole project started. But the ESA review was not. And had it been done properly by the contractor to begin with we wouldn't even be here today because it wouldn't have had to go through the ESA review. And it seems to me that this is putting an awfully onerous burden on the owner to come in retroactively and try to comply with something that was in place after this thing was built. Had the building permit been correctly pulled at the time of construction this wouldn't have happened. This wouldn't be in violation of the ESA because it didn't exist. Kim: The question about potential building permit situation that might be discovered under review by the Building Dept, I looked back to the minutes on the Zoning Board case the case regarding the elevated deck and in addition to the approval of the deck one of the members said "I would like to expand on that and that they go back, meet the building codes with respect to railings and the ESA and HPC for that railing to ascertain if it is appropriate". So what we haven't seen is potential for some type of railing. Ronnie: I have a railing. Kim: On the deck right now? Ronnie: No. I have it. It just needs to be put on. No one has told me "Put this railing on the deck". 14 PZM12.17.91 Kim: Well that will be part of it so I think we should consider that as far as visual impacts go. I think that we should also realize that the ESA Ord was adopted to consider not only visual impacts but activity level right on the slope and perched over the slope. And for one reason that we did not want to have specific development cantilevered or terraced down the slope is that it would draw people even closer than what the natural terrain would allow. I think this is an example of what we are trying to avoid. In the case of the Moore's review which came shortly after adoption of the ordinance I think that the Commission was very strongly in favor of the ordinance and upheld the trend of the ordinance and put the message out to comply with the terms of the ordinance in order to make it as effective as possible. One thing I think is important to recognize that this particular development was one of the instigating factors to such a concern that ACES had about increasing development and it has basically everyone's concern about what would happen as far as it causing other developments getting in closer to the slope. The development as it exists now clearly does not meet the criteria. And I think we have pretty much established that fact. The way that the ordinance reads that a proposal must meet all the criteria. So my last comment basically is that staff has considered a proposal as an alternative which would allow for special review approval, all the criteria would have been met. That is the reason staff tried to figure out a solution that would allow both the type of activity that Ms. Marshall would like to have in her yard and also to comply with the intent of the ordinance. Jed told me out in the hall that because this is a one step hearing for approval at the Commission that the appeal process would be to a court of law and he was going to go get his code book and will be back. MOTION Richard: I will move to deny the ESA review for deck and hot tub as it currently exists on the Marshall Hallam Lake Bluff ESA special review on December 17, 1991. Sara: I will second the motion. Roger: That basically infers the removal of the hot tub. there is a compromise solution short of that. Not I think tha t I 15 PZM12 . 17 . 91 particularly like it. I don't like the fact of how this happened. But I am a bit sympathetic with the applicant. I am not of the opinion that a lot of people when it comes to something in the ground thinks of the requirement of a permit as simple as a driver's license or relating it to a requirement of a driver's license to drive a car. So I will vote against this motion. I think we can come up with a better compromise solution for the applicant and really the community as well. And that compromise solution probably means reducing of the deck overhang of the slope. Richard: If this were only a matter of complying with the code as such, I think a compromise might be in order. But as we have already heard there are serious effects on the neighborhood as a whole encouraging other people to build fences out into the bluff area and also even if we remove the whole deck there is still the hot tub on the edge of the bluff where activity will take place at all hours of the day and night that impacts the lake. The effect is there even if we make some sort of compromise. Kim: Richard, would you care to amend your motion to state findings or even why you recommend denial? Richard: Basically because it is in violation of sections 1 and 2 of the ESA Review. And those I think override other considerations. Sara: I will second that amendment. McMahon: Could you please repeat. I have gotten kind of mixed up in what goes to the motion. David: The motion is for denial right now. Richard: For denial of the ESA Special Review-- McMahon: You are just out and out denying the whole thing despite the harsh result on the owner. Jasmine: I think that is clear. Richard: Yes. Denial the ESA Review for the deck and hot tub as it currently exists and that would include condition #3 on page 5 that if the hot tub is moved back that the current excavation be- Kim: If you deny then you can come back and make a motion to recommend to approve an alternative design that the staff has recommended and finding that the second design meets review criteria including the special review criteria that is separate from the first set of review criteria. 16 PZM12.17.91 Sara: So you can't move to deny it and deny special review. Kim: As proposed they are not really requesting special review. It doesn't meet the first criteria which is "No development shall take place below the top of the slope". #2 is that "All development within the 15 foot setback shall be--except for an approval by special review". So that is where this staff scenario comes in. Jasmine: That would be another step if the motion maker wishes to take that. So we are starting with the first-- McMahon: What I proposed was that we did meet the criteria for special review with respect to the development within the 15 foot setback. Jasmine: Yes, but this motion is saying "No". We are going to see how that comes out. Roll call vote: Tim, nay, David, yes, Sara, yes, Richard, yes, Bruce, no, Roger, no, Jasmine, yes. Motion carried. Bruce: I find it a little bit uncomfortable that staff is in effect designing the remedy for the applicant and how they are going to deal with this. Basically by a 4 to 3 vote we told them "You can't have it where it is now". And rather than staff designing it, unless it is acceptable to the applicant, I would rather see the applicant come back and say "We are going to put the deck here or the hot tub here". I am a little uncomfortable with us coming up with the solution for them when we told them no, they can't have it where it is. Kim: It is not staff's feeling that this is the only alternative or workable solution. I think it shows that by moving it back 10 or 12 feet it can substantially meet the criteria of the code with special review. It would show how it could meet the review criteria of being the least impact as possible moved back and a minimal intrusion and minimal impact and that kind of thing. It is guidelines for an alternative solution. Bruce: Don't they have to come in with a new application? Kim: That is one thing that I thought that if the applicant felt comfortable with a design like this and the Commission wanted to go ahead and approve something like this then they wouldn't have 17 PZM12.17.91 to come back. But as it is now, it is just a straight denial-- the development has to be removed and they have to come back. The applicant could wish to not accept staff's recommendation realizing that when they do come back they will be back before you. Roger: If I were to make a motion on this it would be a motion to accept the present location of the spa itself but with a substantial reduction of the deck overhanging the bluff. Jasmine: The location has already been denied. Roger: No. everything. David: You are talking about chopping off this part? The proposal has been denied as presented. That's Roger: Yes. A substantial portion of it. Marshall: Can my architect help us with this? We could possibly lower the deck. We could possibly chop off some of the deck. McMahon: The economics of moving the spa are just not in the cards. Moving the actual spa. Marshall: That is who I would like to talk to. He should be here tonight but something happened. There was a terrible accident at some construction somewhere. But can we continue this? Is that possible? So I can have him help with this? Jasmine: Let me just see what the procedure would be on this. Kim: I think it can be a whole new application. You have already had the motion and the vote to deny as it is. Realizing that anything that is just a reduced version of what is already there and in the same location still potentially won't meet the criteria again. I think it would be wise that any re-design come back as a separate application whether it is moved backward or try to save anything. Marshall: Can I appeal what has happened here today? Diane: In a court of law according to what Jed said. Marshall: some That is what I would like to do. I would like to have with me and I would feel more comfortable with that. Tim: Can I make a motion or put out some instruction to staff even to counsel to look into and censor the contractor and find out if there is any procedure that we could take to find out why he didn't get a permit? 18 PZM12.17.91 Marshall: I have a court date January 8th with him. McMahon: Is there any way the Commission will table this and let us bring back some plans and work with Kim and the architect to- -rather than just--I mean the economic burdens are just enormous. Jasmine: Procedurally I really don't know what the correct answer is. The application before us was denied as it was presented. I don't really understand procedurally what happens after that. Marshall: I just don't feel a real justice to this. Jasmine: I am not trying to be unfair, Ronnie. But I guess with the finding of the majority of the members of the Commission was that the review criteria as stated were not met by the application. That was the motion that was voted on. We certainly no objection to seeing it again. Diane: You have an opportunity under special review to come back in with an application. But what the Commission has voted on essentially is that the present location now isn't going to work and doesn't meet the standards of the ordinance. But you can submit an application under special review. Kim: It would actually be another application under the first set of criteria which are the ones that were found out being that if special review were needed in addition to a revised design then that would be kind of a secondary under the umbrella of the ESA rules. Diane: But you would have to come in with a re-design essentially is what it amounts to. Marshall: OK. I think I can lower the deck and it would be simple. But I don't think that you are going to be that happy. But I think I will be right in the law. So it is really like a catch 22. Bruce: Procedurally Jed is probably correct. But there may be an opportunity for one of those who voted in favor of this motion to make a motion to reconsider it and then we can table the current application and they can then amend whatever application they have already got in front of us. What I am trying to do is try and keep them from having to go back to square one and start a whole new application process. If we are only talking about them re- designing it. It might be that the end result is going to be the same that they are going to have to jerk the whole thing out and move it back. But if we can save some time and shorten the process by reconsidering then maybe that is a possibility. But it has to 19 PZM12.17.91 be one of those 4 that voted in favor of the motion to make a motion to reconsider. Kim: I am just wondering procedurally--staff has accepted an application and done our review and all of our Parks Dept and Tom Cardamone has reviewed this current proposal. Basically if they come in with a new design, it is a new application. It is a whole new thing to consider with a fresh slate looking at the criteria determining the responses based on the new conditions. So I don't know if we can actually save a lot of time. It is basically a new application. And I would want to re-route it back to referrals. Jasmine: Does anyone who voted in favor of the motion wish to make a new motion? Richard: I am not inclined to reconsider it because I don't see any advantage either to the applicant or to the city in doing so. The kind of compromises I have heard suggested here--just chopping off the deck while it might mitigate the visual impact, it has no effect on the activity on the site and so I would like to see a whole new application in compliance with the ESA standards. Sara: I second that. I am not against a hot tub if it meets the ESA standards. So re-designing it without satisfying that--you need to re-locate it. David: I agree and concur. If saving any part of it where it currently stands would meet any of the ESA requirements I think that would be fine but I don't think you will be able to do that. If your architect and designers can meet the ESA requirements, I see no need to start a new file. So I would be willing to do that but I would still, to be swayed, it would still need a total relocation of the deck to conform and be in compliance with the ESA standards--the deck and the hot tub. McMahon: The tub as well. David: The entire whole development. Jasmine: I concur. Bruce: Then we are done. David: So if you feel that you would like to see it tabled and you are willing to come back with a new design under this review process--but the new design would completely comply with the ESA standards then I would be willing to make a motion. But if you feel that that is an inconceivable and impossible task I understand and we can just go from here. 20 PZM12.17.91 Jed: May I interject something on a procedural matter? Jasmine: Yes, please. Jed: I have heard the applicant state that she wants to appeal. Her only appeal from this body is within 30 days of this decision to District Court. You have to file a decision right now. If you are going to reverse that it would have to be by a motion to reconsider the vote. Take a new vote. Undo what you have done. And therefore preserving her right to appeal at some later date. If you undo your vote and then vote to table then I guess we are back to as if you didn't have this meeting at all. And in that the applicant has indicated she wishes to appeal I don't know she has to confirm with her attorney if she wishes to do that. You probably ought to hold to your decision today and let her appeal if that is what she wants to do. Jasmine: In polling the people who had voted for the motion including the motion maker, the motion seconder and the people who voted for the motion--of the 4 people who voted for the motion none wishes to reconsider. Jed: Then you are done. 316 EAST HOPKINS LANDMARK DESIGNATION Jasmine opened the public hearing. Roxanne made presentation. (attached in record) There were no comments or questions from members. Jasmine asked for public comment. There was none and she closed the public portion of the hearing. MOTION Roger: I move to recommend approval of landmark designation for 316 East Hopkins. Bruce seconded the motion with all in favor. EMDE STREAM MARGIN REVIEW CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT GMOS EXEMPTION FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT Jasmine opened the public hearing. Kim Johnson, Planning Dept. made presentation. (attached in record) One thing that has changed that we know of in regards to this application is that the applicant originally had proposed a 20ft reserve for ROW easement on the Spring st because of a couple of 21 PZM12.17.91 previous reviews in this neighborhood. One being a lot split and the other being stream margin review. At that time Engineering had accepted reserves for spring st ROW rather than the City taking or requiring the applicant to give ROW. The City Attorney has discussed that there is no connection between the stream Margin Review and a requirement That comes out of subdivision regulations regarding ROW width. So basically Engineering and Planning and the Attorney's office have informed the applicant that there will be no requirement and that if he wants to reserve some easement along Spring st that that is his option and at this point I think that Mr. Emde has withdrawn that particular item from his application. So the site plan will not reflect that particular item. Roger: I am really confused to me means South of Main st. Main st on spring st? on the term "South Spring st" which And were does the river go south of Sunny: That's the way it shows on the survey. Then using maps he explained to P&Z members in answer to this question. Sunny presented affidavit of public notice. (attached in record) certificate of Notice by Mailing was also presented. (attached in record) After public. hearing. further discussion Jasmine asked for comments from the There were none and she closed the public portion of the MOTION Tim: I would make a motion that the recommendations of the staff on the Emde Stream Margin Review are approved as amended and that the conditional exemptions according to the staff's recommendations and according to the amendments are accepted including item #17 prior to the issuance of any CO the present structure on the property is demolished. Roger seconded the motion with all in favor. OLD LIBRARY TEXT AMENDMENT FOR A CONDITIONAL USE Jasmine opened the public hearing. Leslie made presentation as attached in record. Bruce: Is there a distinction between broadcasting station and broadcasting studio? 22 PZM12.17.91 Leslie: In the code they talk about broadcasting station. In my verbiage I talked about studio. So I will amend #9 to read broadcasting station. Bruce: Is broadcasting station defined in the code and what does that encompass? Does it encompass satellite dish and all those sorts of things? Leslie: Satellite dish is defined in the code. And in every zone district in the City satellite dish is a conditional use review. Bruce: So even though we would approve it broadcasting station if they want a satellite dish or an antennae or anything else they still have to come in for a separate review? Sunny: The public notice is a little misleading. It references conditional use review for satellite dish. We have checked with the station engineer. We are not requesting approval for a satellite dish as defined in the code as anything over 2ft in diameter and 2ft in height. There are antennae associated with this operation. There is something called a "Yahee" which lays flat on the roof. There is a thing like a lawn chair on it's side and then there is a pole which extends from 3 to 4ft above the roof. All of those are subject at a minimum to Roxanne's staff level signoff at the HPC. Or depending on what they look like she may determine they are also subject to minor review with the HPC as well. Bruce: You are not planning on using US West phone lines to-- Sunny: I don't think so. Leslie: Because their application did not include a satellite dish, if in the future they want to put one in that would be a total separate review. Bruce: So the definition of broadcasting station is not so inclusive as to include a satellite dish. Richard: And a 100ft antenna. David: This has previously been rezoned to Office. mitigations not required at the time of the rezoning Why are they being required now? Why were to Office. Leslie: Mitigation was required. That was a condition of approval. Parking and employee mitigation would be done. The problem was is to assess employee mitigation. We had never used 23 PZM12.17.91 that in this zone. parking mitigation that was also something that Council said "When the use comes in we will assess-- Diane: They wanted to have it deferred to this point in time when the use was identified. David: What is the relationship then between the affordable mitigation and the williams/Woods project? Sunny: The County--let's take the scenario the County was going to use this library for it's own office purposes. And is required to mitigate it's impact. The County is now building an affordable housing project and has elected to earmark certain units in that project as the mitigation associated to the library. That raises a variety of questions Which the Council decided not to delve into. Is the County using public money to subsidize resale of the library for private use. The Council elected not to get into the esoteric aspects of it and simply accepted these units as deed restricted affordable housing which are earmarked by resolution of the Board of county Commissioners as being the mitigation of the library. The theory there that they can't be counted again for some other project. David: So it has already been done? Sunny: The agreement is before the County Commissioners has agreed to adopt a resolution earmarking a certain number of the Williams/Wood units to meet the affordable housing requirements of the library with a proviso that it does not affect who they are sold to, rented to or anything else. They are still subject to the lottery. David: The last condition is that Council wants to discuss and have jurisdiction over the parking. Diane: Basically, yes, council has directed the Planning staff to come up with alternatives. Leslie: However they directed us to pursue a code amendment and a code amendment is a 2 step process. Sunny: The theory is that the mitigation as exacted would be from the Council for parking in exchange for the change in use approval and rezoning will satisfy the parking requirement under the conditional review process. All we are saying is that comply with Council's requirements and so on. the conditional use condition is that we final determination as to parking 24 PZM12.17.91 Diane: That's correct. sunny: It is identical hasn't been determined. parking hasn't. to housing. The only difference is it The housing has been determined and David: At this point I would like to withdraw myself from this issue due to a potential conflict of interest in relationships with parties related to the applicant. It is only at this time I realized how entangled my clients are in this project. Jasmine asked for public comment. Sunny presented affidavit of public notice. (attached in record) MOTION Sara: I would like to make a motion to recommend to City council that a text amendment be made for section 24-5-213C for a conditional use approval for a broadcasting station be approved for the Office zone as a conditional use. Richard seconded the motion with all in favor. MOTION Jasmine: Then we have the second part of this which is a conditional use approval for a broadcasting station at 120 East Main with the 3 conditions that have been discussed. Any exterior improvements shall be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Committee being now #1. And that #2 that this shall be null and void. The conditional use approval shall be null and void if the text amendment does not go forward. Leslie: #3--parking mitigation shall be provided as required by the rezoning or shall be determined by City Council. Jasmine: So those are the 3 conditions of the conditional use approval. MOTION Tim: I make that motion. Richard seconded the motion. Roger: I have a problem on the second one without an application that shows me the whole thing--the plan of what they re gong to do 25 PZM12.17.91 identifying what the parking impacts are going to be and things like that. Sunny: The proposal is to occupy the existing building with minor changes inside to remove the asbestos and relocate petitions. They will probably never be more than one parking space on site. It has the trash service area adjacent to the alley. Parking is also access via the partial alley at the rear. The radio station is going to occupy a portion of the building. The rest will be just for office purposes. The applicants eventually whoever winds up buying here will have to mitigate the parking either through cash-in-lieu payment or some other mechanism as may be determined by city Council. The expansion of the building proposed the only exterior anticipated at this time may be some provisions to the entrance and inclusion of the necessary tenant on the roof which would be subject to HPC staff or commissioner review. Roger: Well, numbers of employees. housing-wise? What are we dealing with sunny: It is based on 23 employees in the building. It will be a sufficient number of units deed restricted at Williams/Wood to house 23 employees. That is based on the building's existing net leasable square footage. Any increase of net leasable is subject either to exemption from growth management or competition under the growth management process. Roger: Service access to the building is by the alley? Sunny: via the alley. Jasmine asked if there was any public comment on this part of the hearing. There was none and she closed the public portion of the hearing. Everyone then voted in favor of the motion. KRAUT PARCEL MAP AMENDMENT FOR REZONING FROM OFFICE (0) TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING (AH) Jasmine opened the public hearing. Leslie made presentation as attached in record. Dave 7, Housing Authority: Made presentation. Jasmine: So your proposal as it is now does not include any neighborhood commercial. 26 PZM12.17.91 Dave: That is correct. Brown: We understand that if approved this affordable housing if someone were to pursue getting into the AH zone that this project as envisioned here could be re-designed to a corporate commercial design. Jasmine: The reason I am asking is that that was one of the things that were brought up at the November meeting was that a lot of the commission were concerned about incorporating underground parking as part of the overall underground parking system for that area of town with perhaps some limited neighborhood commercial included and then that would make fewer housing units but that more like a sort of community center orientation. Dave: I would expect that some of the concerns as far as density, quality of materials and the form of the design would apply equally to a housing development by itself. . Bruce: I just don't understand why the application to rezone at this point to AH--what the rush is. The land is owned by the city. It is not as if the city is planning to go out there and build some big multi-story office structure or whatever. We all know that this is something we want to do right. I just don't understand why the rush to rezone it. Dave: The direction from the City council was to look at this site first as a housing site because it was purchased with housing funds. And to move ahead because of the need to build rental housing. To move ahead with the project development which has to start with a rezoning application. But the city Council did understand that there was concern that other uses might be incorporated into this and that there should be a way to do that even while designating that parcel as affordable housing. Bruce: I understand the answer. I just don't like it. Sara: In the schematic floor plan it shows the parking garage and garden level. Is that space at this time only for housing or is it commercial? Dave: What we have provided in the development plan here it only talks about housing and the parking required for housing. Of course anything here could be altered. We could go deeper for additional parking. We could go under both buildings rather than under one building which we show right now for parking. We could use those garden level spaces for commercial rather than housing uni ts. Council understands that any commercial component on parking would likely reduce the number of housing units. 27 PZM12.17.91 Sara: If you have affordable housing and then amended the zone my concern is there is neighborhood stores and parking garages in every affordable housing zone and that isn't our intent. Leslie: One of the things we would be considering is if you amended the zone to allow commercial elements it would maybe be consistent with what the original commercial zone was as far as uses and dimensional requirements. It would not be a zone amended to the AH zone that we could then apply at the Bass property, the Austin property up there in a pure residential zone district. Jasmine then asked for comments from the public. Jody Edwards, attorney: Our office represents the 700 East Hyman Ave Condominium Association. They are the neighbors across Hyman Ave to the left. I have a letter from some of the owners. (attached in record) They have expressed some of their concerns with respect to this proposed development. Additionally I would like to give you some other concerns I have. First it doesn't seem like we have a real development plan to look at. This is very vague. It is less than conceptual. What this allows is that the owner can take their rezoning and go build to the maximum allowed under the rezoning without any public review. Now you have talked about the potential for a SPA overlay. If you do that then you have got to come back for public review and that will take care of that problem. But if you just grant them a rezoning and all they have to do is go back to the Building Dept. Jasmine: No, that is not true. Leslie: Rezoning is one thing. The next step would be the full subdivision review process which lS a public hearing at the Planning & Zoning commission and a public hearing at city Council. In addition to special reviews for parking, open space and anything else that would be involved with a very specific development plan. So it will come back for a very thorough review. To pull a building permit you need subdivision review--full subdivision review. Edwards: There is a significant impact on the traffic and there is a double negative impact on the parking. As proposed the AH zone allows approximately 3 times the density we have there existing right now in an office zone. We will have 3 times the cars, 3 times the people. The parking will be--there is currently a commercial parking lot. That will be displaced putting all those cars out on the street in this neighborhood. We also will have new parking for the new residents there. As proposed we are talking 28 PZM12.17.91 about .6 to .75 parking spaces for a bedroom. I think everybody in this room knows that when you do parking at that low of a level you end up with more parking on the street. So we have a double negative impact on parking being pushed off this space into the streets. Commercial parking does not have an allowed use under the AH zone. But it is in the office zone. As property is developed under the existing zoning if you deny this application you could do some of the things you are talking about. The owner, the city, could come in and protect mUlti-family affordable housing project with a commercial parking project and you wouldn't have to go through all of these amendments to the AH zone that you are worried about and having them applied all around town. This would solve the parking problem. It would preserve the existing spaces and it would provide new spaces for the new units and allow development of a multi-family affordable housing unit. I would like you to review standards which are listed in the memo. The second standard--one of the goals in the plan is to be appropriately scaled for the neighborhood. Then the comparability of the development with the surrounding zone district and land uses. The Kraut property is surrounded by property zoned Office, C-l, LP and RMF. The Kraut property itself is zoned Office. The LP zone is a special preservation zone for lodges. The remaining zones which comprise most of the neighborhood require a minimum lot area of 1,000sqft for a studio, 1,250sqft for each I-bedroom unit and 2,100sqft for each 2-bedroom unit. The AH zone only requires 300sqft, 400sqft and 800sqft respectively for those units. That is the effect of rezoning from Office to AH is to allow tipple the density. You get triple the number of uni ts. To build at a density that is triple that of the surrounding neighborhood what all the neighbors have built to is not in the scale of the neighborhood and is not compatible with the surrounding zone district. So those standards are not met. You are talking about a proposal that far exceeds the surrounding neighborhood. The other standard is whether there has been changed conditions effecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood would support the amendment. The only circumstances mentioned by the Planning Dept memo and the applicant is a shift from working residents to second home owners in the neighborhood. This is not a change condition. What this is is a result of development of the surrounding property within the bounds of the existing zoning. This condition does not merit a rezoning. What it merits is development of the property under the existing zoning in whatever manner the 29 ~. PZM12.17.91 owner chooses within the uses allowed by the Office zone district. The city owns the property. They can do whatever they want allowed by the Office zone district. Multi-family affordable housing is allowed by the Office zone district. Development should be within the criteria of that district like all the neighbors. There must be some real evidence for you, the Commission, to find that there was changed conditions in the neighborhood and I submit that there are no changed conditions which justify a rezoning. I have been informed by at least one of the neighbors that they never received a mailed public notice. The affidavit of mailing was presented at this time. (attached in record) By participating in this hearing we want to make it clear we expressly do not waive any procedural due process. Next section 6-205Cl requires that all testimony be taken under oath. I would state right now that everything I have said is true to the best of my knowledge with the one correction we made earlier. And I request that you require that all testimony that you consider be under oath. For these reasons we request you deny the application for a map amendment for the Kraut property or at a minimum add some very serious restrictions on what can be built and what parking will be required so that the development is compatible with the neighborhood. We don't obj ect to development. The property is going to be developed obviously. We just would like for it to be compatible. We don't want this huge out-of-scale project that doesn't fit in this neighborhood. He then presented a letter from the Seven Hundred East Hyman Ave Condominium Association members stating their objections to this development. (attached in record) Fred Martel, 702 East Hyman: I want to talk about what you want to do with this. Has anybody given any thought whatsoever to what this is going to cost. I am talking about renting these units. You put underground parking. You are talking about affordable housing. If you are going to have construction that is equal to the construction in the area what type of price are you going to be able to charge these people if you can rent the units. And how are they going to afford to pay for the units? It just doesn't seem feasible to me as a developer that you can construct something 30 - PZM12. 17.91 This type of construction--4 of our bedrooms are right on Hyman naturally facing the mountain. That is what we paid for. At this time let's say 8 or 9 o'clock at night the streets are finished. The office building across the street is closed. The guests are finishing their dinners. The office building around the corner where the old post office was they are all finished with business for the day. Then the street becomes quiet and peaceful. If you are going to have employee housing where people are finishing work some people at 2:00 in the morning, they can be walking up and down the street and it can get pretty rowdy. Everybody is out in the bars drinking and now they can come back and all of our bedrooms are facing exactly where they can be walking into their housing. The parking right now during the season is unbelievable. That is with a parking lot. I don't what you intend to do with all this parking you have. You are planning 30 units with 2 bedroom some with 1 bedroom. You are planning 8 2-bedrooms. Then half as much again for the 1 bedroom because at least 2 people can live in one bedroom in Aspen without any problem whatsoever. And then the studios--we are talking about 60 people living in this little area. And that is just going to get out of hand. I don't know why this particular spot was picked for this type of development. There are plenty of other areas that would cost you a lot less money. To do this type of construction I don't think anybody has done a feasibility study. What is it going to cost us on an annual basis to keep funding this? Bob Baum: I live at 704 East Hyman. I don't know whether any of the Commissioners have been there during the season. There is so much illegal parking allover the area. The police don't do anything in the winter. The cars are parked over the curbs. The police don't tow. I have asked the police about it. They walk away and just look at you like you are ignorant. If you go and develop this area, you are displacing all of the cars that are on the parking lots. And I don't know whether you have thought about what are you going to do with these cars. The police don't help us. TURN TAPE Leslie: In the AH zone district the maximum height is 25ft. ?: Because we see the mountain right now. Leslie: In the Office zone district the maximum height is 25ft. You can go up to 30ft with special review. 31 PZM12.17.91 ?: Are there not a lot of empty employee housing in Snowmass at this point? Jasmine: The question of the location of employee housing has to do more with dispersal of housing throughout areas of the City and county. This is a city project and therefore although everything is kind of tied in together the presence or absence of employee housing units at Snowmass is not really part of this evaluation. Bob?: Is part of the evaluation security for the area? towing of cars so we are protected on our land values? We have a problem now. You are packing in this whole area with transient labor. You a re not packing in this area people with equity who care about the area. These are transients. You are putting one bedroom-- Jasmine: Just a moment please. I do think it is only fair to tell you that according to your definition, I am a transient. Although I have lived here for 20 years, because I don't have equity because I don't own property in Pitkin County. I think you are leaping to conclusions about the kind of people that you think are going to be living in these projects. I think you should think more carefully about how you categorize people who do have a commitment to the community and the fact that they have not been able to afford to buy property in the area. This does not necessarily make them transient trash. And I know that is what you are concerned about. And I don't blame you. But I really don't think that that is an appropriate characterization. And I personally find it insulting. And I am sorry about that. We usually at a public hearing allow you to state your concerns which you have done. Bruce: I actually agree with very little with what the public comments have been. I do agree with their ultimate request and that is to deny this rezoning at this point. And I will make the motion at the proper time or vote accordingly. I don't think that it is proper for us to rezone at this point. I don't think we have satisfied all the criteria and I think we need to figure out what we are going to do with the site before we go ahead and just willy- nilly rezone it. I just don't think that is acting properly for us to do that. Even though I disagree with most of what the comments that have been made regarding this site and the kind of people that will be living there and all that sort of thing. And we may end up with it being AH and may end up with a nice project. But I am not ready to do it tonight. I think this piece of property is crucial enough that we ought to take the time and do it right. I happen to know that this property was under contract before the City ever had it under contract by 32 PZM12.17.91 a private developer to develop other kinds of projects and for a lot of different reasons but primarily economics the guy backed out of the deal because he couldn't make it work. And now we are trying to cram another kind of project on the thing and as one of the public commented--I don't know what all kinds of studies have been done--but I don't think we can force-fit this. I think that is kind of what we are doing by zoning it first. We are trying to just cram something on there and we have no idea what we are going to end up with. And I don't think that is the proper way to plan. And I don't think it is proper for the Planning & zoning commission to be a part of that process. David: I found myself agreeing surprisingly more than I expected with Jody's comments. And with some of the things that Bruce is saying. I think that the applicant may want to consider maintaining the Office zoning even though they may wish to move forward at this time with the preliminary application. They may not want to go through with it. A lot of what is being requested is available in the Office zone including the parking, including commercial, including affordable housing. It seems like some of the negatives appear to be the parking requirements and the FAR requirement. I agree with Bruce and the neighbors that it is an efficient use of prime real estate. I think affordable housing could be better more efficiently done a few blocks away. However I also in this case defer to Council's request that this be affordable housing. There are a significant number of programs in the community to subsidize. This is not a free market project. Yes, it will lose money. Yes, it requires subsidizing. That is why when you sell your property, there will be a tax on that transference of property. And the are several taxes in the community to help subsidize this type of housing. As a member of the community who does not have equity--I have talked to people in the community who define transients as anyone who has lived here less than 3 years. Well, I have got my 4 years in now and I feel great that I am a resident finally. My wife has been here 15 years and I just hope that one of these days I might be able to afford one of these units at this site or at another site. I think you would be surprised to fine that most of the people, most of the professionals in this community have lived-- in their 20'S, 30's, 40's or 50's--in a project similar to this in this community. This community is such that if you don't come with a trust fund, if you don't come with a gold spoon in your mouth this is the kind of project you live in if you are going to work here and live here. 33 PZM12.17.91 The FAR difference, Jody, I would differ with you on the triple density. The difference is a 1.1 to 1 ratio for affordable housing. It is supposed to mass with 1 to 1 on Office. Jody: That has to do with the FAR. What I am talking about is the allowed density. You need a certain number of square feet of lot area for each unit. David: If it is 100% affordable. The ratios for units and land area required are the same under the Office zone if it is a 100% affordable housing as for the AH zone. The only down side is a subtle loss in FAR and a 1 parking space per bedroom requirement. My office is right next door. It is in the Hannah Dustin building. And I am somewhat familiar with this site and with your homes. And I think that to categorize all affordable housing as ugly, I personally take deference to that because I have designed several projects--I don't know if you have been to Twin Ridge Townhomes- -I don't know if you have been to the Hunter Longhouse Addition- -I don't know if you have been to the Williams, Woods Townhomes. I think they are gorgeous and I think they are compatible with the character of the community and I think any of those projects could fit anywhere in the Aspen area. As far as your property values go, I don't know if you are aware of it but there was recently a $3 million plus dollar house sold immediately adjacent to the Aspen Ski Co housing project on West Hopkins at the SW corner of Paepcke park. That project was in development as a speck house sold for over $3 million dollars. I think you can feel comfortable in not seeing your own real estate values drop due to relationship to an employee housing project. I think that perhaps in this community at this location the appropriate scale would be to build as much as possible and maximize the FAR and the bulk and the mass allowed on That site. It is close to town. It is close to services. It is close to businesses. It is close to work. It is close to the Gondola. It is close to bus lines. It is close to everything it takes to make a community work. And that is probably the biggest reason I am willing to go along with Council's willingness to subsidize this property because it is so close to those services. And there is a significant chance that the people living in this project would not have as many cars as others because of the proximity to services, work, recreation and mass transportation. As far as glut on the market--I think the only glut on the market is in the perception of the slum words in this community. I think there is still an incredible shortage in the community for affordable housing. I think perhaps the only softening we have 34 PZM12.17.91 seen is in product that efficiencies ranging from $1,200 to $1,500 a month that I wouldn't have lived in in college. If there are any units in Snowmass still available it is because of financing, is not currently favorable the employee market. I think that is currently being re-addressed by Snowmass Council. This project the way I understand it is being targeted at rental- not for sale. As much as I would like to see it go for sale property, the biggest need really is at the low end of the market. It is people such as myself that can't come up with a down payment for $120,000 dollar townhome in this community. I am sure if there is rowdy people out on the street this project won't increase it because they are already there so that won't detract from your quality of living. I am sure having seen several of them, there have been significant feasibility studies. Having done several of them I know that there are significant feasibility studies. And, yes, they will require subsidies for this type project. It is unfortunate but given the price of the land that projects such as yours has helped increase the value of the land. It is really too bad that the City has to belly up that much to subsidize housing. But that is life in this community. There are certain benefits to living in this community. There are also certain costs. And given the land controls that we have in this community, it is homeowners such as you that benefit the most by not having a large number of people such as Vail or a Chicago that the community gets filled out. So the quality of life that you have here is going to be greatly increased by having this type of project across the street. I would like to encourage the applicant to re-consider further PUD, SPA hybrids with including the parking and commercial use. I will support the applicant on this. Roger: I agree considerably with Bruce. I look at this piece of property in an overall scheme of things in this part of town and to zone it AH alone is a terrible underutilization of this parcel if only AH were just planted on this property. I think at the bare minimum there should be a parking structure under that property which can later be expanded as they will inevitably re-develop. I consider that an integral part of the transportation plan for the community to have an intercept parking facility for the east end of town particularly in summer. It is also the closest parking facility possible to the Gondola. At the very least it would have to be AH SPA. I would really prefer the AH in this almost being 35 PZM12.17.91 an overlay to some other rezoning. I have no problems with affordable housing on this site. But to put affordable housing alone on this site is criminal underutilization for community needs. I also agree with a lot that David says. And believe it or not- -some of what Jody says. Richard: I tend to agree with what Roger just said. I see the AH application of the presently stands of being driven by historical events regarding the money with which the land was purchased and what was allowed at that time. I have long had a desire that the City show an interest to at least look at this as a mixed use. If neighborhood commercial or some offices mixed in there also is appropriate for that site. I think we need to explore that before or after zoning for affordable housing. Unless it places some onerous time constraints on the City as the developer, let's look at the rezoning after we have looked at the project. concerning the reactions of the neighbors I would like to remind them of the historical uses of the neighborhood including the land on which their buildings now exist. It was once a christmas tree lot and a lovely little victorian cottage that included employee housing and a health food store that served the community. I used to live on East Cooper which is now part of the Greystones in a miner's cottage which was certainly not done up but I consider no less attractive than what is there now. And we also had 4 bedrooms and 5 people on a 3,000sqft lot. So that is the kind of historical use and density that was there before some of the recent developments. And I see this as being appropriate with some of the historical uses of that neighborhood as employee housing. And a block north of you is the Pitkin Row Townhouses now was a very dense complex old buildings that was inhabited by local employees who have now been evicted from the neighborhood by re-development. I live in a 33 unit government owned employee housing project that is very quiet. I hear no drunken noise whatsoever. I think most of the noise comes from people who are here on vacation and renting houses and condominiums further east of you. It is not so much the locals. I don't think that is as much of a problem as you perceive it. Tim: I am very excited about this site being used for affordable housing. I am very excited that in conjunction with affordable housing we can maximize the density and put as many deserving people that close to the core of town as possible. I think that I agree that it should not only be strictly employee housing but it should be a commercial parking structure. I am not that excited 36 PZM12.17.91 about commercial shops or facilities. I think that the downtown core is already overcommercialized and that the post office and Clark's Market area is more appropriate for neighborhood commercial. I think that the units that are going to be built there should be very unique. They should have more storage. There should be a laundromat in the building. There should be post office boxes in the building. Maybe the roof top should be used for some kind of sunning or recreational or tubbing area. We have to work on all of this before I am willing to have it re-zoned at this presentation. I think that we should have an in hand comprehensive plan, economic feasibility study and potential builders and people who are interested in independently funding the working of this project before we put it in an AH zone right now. As far as the public comment on what goes on downtown and what your neighborhood consists of I think that I don't know how I can feel sorry for you that you have the places that you have because you have parking problems and that you have people on the street that are adjacent to your bedrooms. I think you should be thrilled to be co-habitating with everybody here in Aspen. And you should be happy that the neighborhood is developing around you as uniquely as it is. And thank you for coming. Sara: I too would want to see affordable housing here. And I agree with what Tim has said. I am very interested in seeing a parking structure there. I have a lot of trouble with local oriented businesses. I don't know how you define those. My question--I know Bruce's concerns but I agree with Leslie and the Council and their direction to us. I don't think you can bid these things without having the zoning. If we go ahead with affordable housing in an Office zone, there is a real parking problem. We need some more study on the parking. We might be preserving the worth of the land by keeping it Office. It might be much more valuable to us by keeping it Office zone. Bruce: I am in favor of affordable housing being on this site. But if I think back on how we deal with other developers. The XYZ Development Co. that comes in here with an application to rezone land from something to something else, we get real squirrely about giving any kind of rezoning unless we know what that guy is going to do with that land. But if we have got the city in here wanting to rezone the land it seems that we ought to give the same standard of scrutiny to the city that we give to anybody else. And I don't think that we ought to be rezoning until we have a little better idea of what we are going to do with the property. 37 PZM12. 17 . 91 Jasmine: I think your proposal is very good. But I think we have gotten ourselves into a situation where you can't do this until you do this and you can't do that until you do that. Somewhere along the line somebody has to take charge of what project this is going to be. And either we just say we will just go with what the Housing Authority has submitted or we at the Planning & Zoning commission can take a more active roll in the planning thereof and give parameters. From what I hear from everybody on the Commission everybody is in support of some affordable housing on the site. From what I have heard there is agreement that there should be some other uses on this parcel particularly some kind of parking structure or have it tied in with some kind of commercial parking structure. Bruce: At some point in time I would not object if the City was able to turn this property for a little extra beyond a million one or whatever it was that we paid for it. And put that money into an affordable housing project at some other site. MOTION Tim: I would make a motion that we table the rezoning of E,F,G, H, and I, Block 104 known as the Kraut property until we can have a work session with the Council representative, with staff representative with the Housing Authority representative and we inform the public as to when this work session will be so that they can participate and we table this until we can have this work session so as not to limit the use or the potential of this property. Roger seconded the motion. Everyone voted in favor of the motion. Jasmine closed the public hearing. MARY B SUBDIVISION AMENDMENT Diane made presentation as attached in record. Sunny Vann using sketches demonstrated to P&Z members the site and explained surrounding properties and plans for this site. P&Z members recommended that a sidewalk be included as part of this project. Roger: Berm the causeway over so that it looks like 2 separate residences totally. Make it a tunnel or something like that that has to be lit but from the outside the land goes over it. 38 PZM12.17.91 MOTION David: I would like to refer to the County P&Z that they approve this as recommended by the Planning staff and add two further conditions: One that an incorporation of sidewalk, curb and gutter, further recommendations of the Engineering staff and Pedestrian Bikeway Committee and secondly encourage the consideration of some exaction of employee housing and third more landscaping to hide the breezeway. Richard seconded the motion. Roger: I think it is inappropriate to recommend to the city or County P&Z or commissioners to approve this monstrosity. So I would like to see those words struck. I think it is appropriate to pass on our concerns and the fact that we do want a sidewalk and do want to minimize that umbilical cord. David: I will withdraw my motion. . Bruce: Roger was saying we wouldn't approve this monstrosity but if you guys are going to here is what we want you to get. Roger: We are resolved with the fact that we are stuck with this monstrosity, we would like to have the following concerns addressed: One--we would like the sidewalk and/or an agreement. We would like that connecting corridor both lowered and receded as far as possible and if at all possible screened from the streetscape so that it looks like 2 separate structures so that someone walking along the street even with extensive landscaping they will be scanning a continuous facade even though it is broken up by landscaping. Richard: It appears to me that the total floor area by County calculations of the combined structures might bring it into their special review category which case it would seem their option to make such an exaction. Diane: I will just say you are making the following referrals-- Jasmine: I declare this meeting adjourned. Time was 8:45pm. 39