Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19921103 ~~tJ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 3. 1992 Chairman Jasmine Tygre called meeting to order at 4:30pm. Answering roll call were Tim Mooney, Sara Garton, Bruce Kerr, Roger Hunt and Jasmine Tygre. David Brown arrived shortly after roll call. Richard Compton was excused. COMMISSION COMMENTS Jasmine commented on the differences between City Planning & Zoning Commission and County Planning & Zoning commission. STAFF COMMENTS Kim asked for a short discussion regarding P&Z reviews of growth management exemptions for net leasable less than 500sqft at end of this agenda. PUBLIC COMMENT There was none. BELL MOUNTAIN LODGE GMOS SCORING. CODE AMENDMENT LP ZONE PARKING REGULATIONS. SPECIAL REVIEW FOR PARKING Jasmine opened the public hearing. MOTION Bruce made motion to continue this hearing to date certain of December 8, 1992 at the request of the applicant. Roger seconded the motion with all in favor. 311 WEST NORTH STREET LANDMARK DESIGNATION (BLOCK) Jasmine opened the public hearing. Kim: Made presentation as attached in record. David: Where is the parking going? Jasmine: We are just doing the designation. Kim: We could look at the actual conditional use part of the project--the next item. """"-'" Bruce: I have some concern about considering these separately. Whereas I don I t have any problem by itself with the historic designation, I may have some problems with conditional use on the PZM11.3.92 site development. I don't know how we are going to handle that. But if we grant the historic designation, that sort of opens the door to the conditional use. Jasmine: They are 2 different actions. The conditional use probably could not be granted without the historical designation. But the historical designation could be granted without the conditional use. Kim: Or if the designation went forward and was obtained by Council and you made the finding--you placed conditions on the conditional use that would require parking or vegetation, that would be your choice. Then it would be up to the applicant to either amend their application or not proceed. Jasmine: Why would this be subject to conditional use review and yet an addition--is the size the thing that triggers and brings forth the conditional use? Kim: It is the second dwelling unit on the site. Both with the conditional use review oversees is the addition of a free market dwelling unit on the site in effect creating a duplex. It could be condominiumized in the future. The size of the site requires that designation be approved to allow the second unit. The site is not large enough for a full duplex in the zone district. So it is a density bonus in effect on the smaller site. Bruce: What is the maximum allowable FAR without landmark designation? How much expansion could you do on this lot without landmark designation without calling it a duplex? Kim: It could not be a duplex. Leslie: The HPC has the ability to grant a floor area if it is needed from a site design-- Bruce: What I am getting at--I want to figure out what the potential is as it is right now without landmark designation and what the potential is with the landmark designation. What the ultimate potential buildout is for that lot at 7,500sqft. with and without designation. That is what I am trying to get at. Block: If I read the code correctly, it is the same amount. Now the existing FAR is 1,314 sqft. That is less than the actual because part of it is underground. The allowable FAR is 3,450 sqft. And we are proposing 2,800 sqft. Bruce: Of countable FAR. Actual square footage would be more than that. .;.......' 2 PZM11. 3.92 Block: Actual square footage is 3,300 sqft. Kim: My memo says total FAR which--he is correct. Some of it is underground. What I calculated out allowable FAR on 7, 500sqft for a single family dwelling is 3,690. David: Under HPC you get a bonus on top of that 3,690. Vickery: They could grant an FAR bonus but they are not requesting an FAR bonus. Sara: So 3,690 would be above ground. Leslie: That includes your 500sqft for a garage which is in the code. Bruce: That can happen without landmark designation either through a teardownjrebuild or through an expansion or addon to the existing residence. Block: Actually the only thing that we wanted in the addition of the house was a second kitchen. And of course the second kitchen needs a duplex. Bruce: A single family residence is not allowed to have 2 kitchens? Leslie: No. David: One of the areas that you are saying it complies with the requirements for HPC is size and community character being a small house. what size of a structure does a structure no longer conform in character? Kim: That is HPC's decision. Leslie: From the perspective that this is a Bayer home and Herbert Bayer was a well known architect in the world and this community, do you all have a problem with that from this historic designation aspect of this? Or is it really the ability for them to add on a second unit and seek parking variances and things like that? Jasmine: The HPC criteria indicates that the dwelling itself is not all that significant as an example of Herbert Bayer's work-- that the criteria that apply have to do with it's role within the community having specifically to do with it's size. And then on the other hand you are doubling the size of it. So this contradiction is very apparent to everybody right off the bat. 3 PZMll. 3 . 92 Those are the criteria we are asked to give historic designation to--not because it is like the best example of Herbert Bayer's work in town or even the second best example of Herbert Bayer'S work in town. But it happens to be Herbert Bayer and it is small. So we say it is Herbert Bayer'S and it is small and therefore it should be historically designated, then at the same time you are turning around and saying to us "Well, yes, but we are going to double the size of it". It kind of makes it very difficult for us to come to grips with this. Block: We are not actually doubling the size of it. We are building another unit on the property that is just connected at one corner. Tim: Then let me take it one step further. E and F says that the structure or site is a significant component or an historical significant neighborhood so if you take that and you attach something to it, I can't see how it is significant to the HPC character of the neighborhood. And then F says the structure or site is critical to the preservation of the character of the Aspen community. Well if in fact we are looking at it like it is a Herbert Bayer house and it is 1,400sqft and it is unique to that lot, I don't see how if we allow you to build another structure right next door to it how it is going to still comply with these 2 criterion. And then like Sara said if we don't go along tear it down and build a 3,600sqft monster. of that either. with this then you can And I am not in favor Block: That is what could happen because it is a very small house. David: What is the setback proposed on the property line adjacent to the alley house? MPT Sara: I am in favor of the historic designation for this application. The way this is designed, to me, is unobtrusive. It is connected at the corner and it may even enhance the structure the way it is now. So I feel that it is not going to change the looks of the site a lot from what is there now. And it is going to replicate Bayer. I don't think we can let a Bayer structure slip away even if it isn't the finest example. Richard: Part of the Bayer house design was to create the simple repetitive vernacular structure using the modern materials so that in that sense I think that to say some other structure which may be unique in design but certainly the dwelling units that are being -~ 4 PZMll.3.92 torn down now are insignificant only in their size--not in their design. Block then showed photos of surrounding structures in the neighbor- hood. MOTION Sara: I make a motion for landmark designation for the parcel at 311 West North Street finding that standards E and F have been met. Richard seconded the motion with all in favor except David. Jasmine closed the public portion of this part of the hearing. BLOCK CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW Jasmine opened the public hearing. Kim made presentation as attached in record. Sara: What is the logic for HPC to review parking on a landmark designation when it is a planning issue? Kim: That has been a recent discussion in the office. HPC is called upon to make findings in a parking variation situation that additional parking is not compatible or can detract from the resource. So that if too much pavement or wide open graveled space or if there were significant vegetation on the site that may have been dated back with the structure. The fact that there is space on the site for parking that the Commission could find that if the impact on the neighborhood were warranted, 6 parking spaces but HPC might feel that that would be a detraction to the resource. Jasmine: The concern is that if for example we gave conditional use approval but one of the conditions of approval was the creation of X number of parking spaces. The applicant could still go back to HPC, request a review and a reduction of parking, and get it. Kim: Right now we are of the opinion that the use and any conditions based on that use is determined by P&Z. Vickery: This project has conceptual approval from HPC already. So they have already conceptually approved parking variation and conceptually approved the design. Kim: In regards to fact that there is a second dwelling unit being requested this parcel could be condominiumized and sold to 2 separate parties, 2 separate sets of occupancy. 5 PZM11.3.92 David: My recollection is in R-6 there is a 7 and 1/2 minimum setback with 15 total. The plans are showing a 6 and 112ft setback on the west side with an eave encroaching a foot or foot and 1/2. It is not scaled so I don't know exactly what the overhang would be. My recollection is also that eaves are not allowed to protrude into setbacks. Kim: Minimum side yard setback is 5ft for a lot this size. And it expands so that the larger the lot the greater the setback. Block: The total side setbacks on both sides have to amount to 22 and 1/2 feet. Kim: I think there is allowable roof overhang also but I don't know if it is 12 inches or 13 inches. David: I have no problem with this being a duplex. It is the design of the duplex I have a problem with. If anything it would be the character of the back yard relative to the little house adjacent which I feel is the most historically appropriate structure on the block. I think it is a sweet little alley house and it is an example of what the alley ___?___' Block: Actually it is the newest structure on the block. David: But it fits the character of what I consider the west end in a very sweet way. I think giving a little more elbow room to that little house next door would be an appropriate consideration. But as long as it fulfills the minimum setback requirement and we are not here to talk about the sculptural appropriateness of the house so I can't address that. I would like to see 1 parking space per bedroom. I have no problem with the duplex. I think any approval of a duplex should have a little more setback on that side and I think this body should have an opportunity to review a redesign of the building to see that it does conform and preserving the character of not just the original neighborhood but the house and the architectural integrity thereof. I don't' think it is quite there. Roger: I agree strongly with David with respect to the setback. I think we should address that in relationship to the carriage house. I have no problems with the duplex. My goal under these circumstances would be to satisfy the parking requirement in view that it could be condominiumized or 2 ownerships. Tim: I would like to add that we make a motion to re-examine this conditional use and I think that we should do that after it has received it's official HPC designation. I have a lot of problems with the design and I think that it would be important for me to 6 PZM11.3.92 know that they have accepted the HPC designation before I move forward with a conditional use of what the additional dwelling unit is actually going to do to impact the site. Jasmine: If I am reading this correctly #15 and #3 have carriage houses that are occupied so that-- Block: This is a garage and it has a room in there. The owner rents this house out to music students in the summer. This was a carriage house and it has been made into a separate dwelling unit. The building itself ends here, not up against the property line and the space between the carriage house--at one time it was a carriage house--and the property line is a storage lean- to that has been built very recently. There was further discussion regarding the carriage house and the lean-to. Roger: I have a little less problem with that then. Then what is the setback of the existing Ringsby house? Block: The property line is on this side of the fence. The fence is on Ringsby's property. I am only guessing but I think it is around 3 or 4 feet at the narrowest point. There are no windows on this side of the house other than obscure glass. Roger: The new addition is set back from the Ringsby house. After further discussion-- Jasmine: I was concerned about our responsibility to the neighborhood. It seems to me this is a neighborhood of fairly small single-family houses on fairly large lots. What we are approving here is in effect a duplex which could be condom in- iumized. Even though the present use is for the applicant's family and grandchildren we can't really assume that that is going to be the state of affairs forever. I think when you include that kind of thing in the memo it is sort of misleading because we really can't make a land use decision based on what the current applicants are going to use it for whatever their family is. We have to think about what the long range effects are. It seems to me that if we have the possibility of a condominiumized duplex in this area we darned well better provide parking. And so I am unhappy with the plan in that regard. As a general consensus there are some varying problems with the conditional use as it is currently proposed. If the HPC approval is denied by city council then all of this discussion is pointless because this could not be done at all. 7 PZMll.3.92 MOTION Tim: I would make a motion that we table the conditional use and public hearing for a duplex at the Block property until it has been approved by city Council as historical preservation designation and at that time we re-examine the site specific of their proposal. The date certain then would be our first meeting in January. David seconded the motion. Jasmine then asked for public comment. There was none. Everyone then voted in favor of the motion except Roger and Richard. Motion carries 5 to 2. Meeting was adjourned. Time was 5:45pm. Janice commission then continued with discussion on reviews of growth management exemptions for net leasable less than 500sqft. 8