Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19950509 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 9. 1995 Chairman Bruce Kerr called the meeting to order at 4:30 P.M. Answering roll call were Jasmine Tygre, Roger Hunt, Sara Garton, Tim Mooney, Robert Blaich, Marta Chaikovska, Steve Buettow, and Bruce Kerr. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Kerr addressed his comments both to his fellow commissioners and members of the public, and asked that all be focused in their comments and questioning as there have been a number of very long meetings. STAFF COMMENTS There were none. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were none. MINUTES There were none. CODE AMENDMENTS REGARDING FAR AND DESIGN REVIEW (ORDINANCE 35) Stan Clauson, Director of Community Development, Leslie Lamont, Deputy Director, and Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Planner, presented for staff. Clauson stated the May 9th memorandum summarized the history, relating to Ordinance 35 and its extension, and what steps staff has taken to come up with a replacement for Ordinance 35 that would achieve the goals of being equable, easy to administer, and affective. Clauson said the packets the Commission had, included, as Exhibit A, the report from Dan Solomon, who was the architectural consultant. The report is the basis for the recommendations in the memorandum, although some minor changes have taken place. He referred the Commission to the overview under Consultants Draft PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 9. 1995 Recommendations on Page 1 of the appendix. Under the overview Solomon listed the key issues from the standpoint of design, and how it would be approached by either design standards and, in some cases, code revisions. Clauson said it is the code revisions that have become part of the amendments, plus some other necessary revisions. Clauson stated he wished to take the Commission through the amendments in depth, and referred to Article 3. Definitions. One of the key definitional changes is to approach differently, porches and balconies. He said this is a key issue because porches were given very strong consideration at the Design Conference, the Design Symposium held in October. He said the definition of porches was extremely important for two reasons; one, it broke up the massiveness of buildings, and it provided a natural bridge between the structure, the residents, and the street. Porches are limited in the current ordinances in a rather complex way. So, the approach taken here is to, both simplify, and to become much less restrictive. Clauson said the definition of porches was defined as an uninsulated, unheated area under a roof, bounded on at least one side by the exterior wall of a living space and open on at least two sides to the outdoors and shall not be counted towards FAR. He said, you might say, under those circumstances, aren't we going to have hugh, grand, excessive porches. Hunt asked for a little clarification and asked about the previous sentence statement which had a 25% rule and he said it was unclear to him when it is stated, "shall not be counted towards FAR". Hunt asked if that meant that those porches were excluded from that 25% rule, and he said that also applied to the loggias. Clauson said he would answer by taking Hunt back to the text. The calculation of decks, balconies, stairways, terraces, and similar features, shall not be included in FAR, provided that those features are not greater than 25% of the maximum allowable floor area of the building. He said, what may be confusing, is the net catalog; decks, balconies, stairways, and terraces, and similar features, we don't have porches. Hunt said, yes you do, on my copy; that's why I'm confused. Clauson said that in respect to decks, balconies, stairways, and terraces, things that are different from porches, there is a limitation, and that is that it will not be greater than 25% of the maximum allowable floor area of the building. Another figure found in the originally in the ordinance. not included in FARs at all. design standards is 15% which He said the porches, themselves, was are 2 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 9. 1995 Clauson said staff had also included, by recommendation of the consultant, the definition of loggias; "an unheated area under a roof, over a living space (space that is inset space into a building) which is surrounded by a least two exterior walls, and calculated at .5 FAR". Clauson stated the next item that was key in the section was the relationship to garages. There was considerable discussion that garages, while they serve the useful function of getting cars off the street, and also, decreasing the visability of cars, what is present in the ordinance right now is the exclusion of 500 sq. ft. The change is to bring in down to a basic 250 sq. ft. and then to charge .5 FAR to everything between 250 and 600 sq. ft. He said there were some calculations that could be done here; at 600 sq. ft., the cost of the garage would be 175 sq. ft. So, it allows people a basic single-car garage; actually, a 250 sq. ft. garage is a car and a half, so, that could easily hold a car and bicycle, storage, etc., and gives them the option of whether they want to expand the garage up to 600 sq. ft. at a reduced FAR charge. Continuing on through the definition; there are some restrictions with respect to driveways and the location of garages. The basic thrust of those, is to place the garage behind the building mass, at the very least, and to the rear of the lot, and on the alley, when that is available. Hunt asked for some clarification; you say, "No portion of a driveway to a garage shall be below the natural grade within the required front setback". Then two paragraphs down, you say, "Garages below the natural grade, will comply with the following conditions", and one of them is, "the vehicular entrance to the garage shall be perpendicular to the front lot line". Hunt asked if these statements countered each other? Clauson answered, he did not think they countered each other, but first wanted to establish that no portion of a driveway shall be below natural grade within the required front setback. In that instance, what staff is talking about is not beginning the cut for a driveway, within the setback itself. One may begin the cut, after the setback. On the other hand, there are certain instances where one would have a garage below the natural grade, bearing in mind, the cut for that garage cannot happen until after the back of the setback. Then one would have the following criteria; the elements of the garage shall be located within fifty feet of the rear lot line or setback 150 ft. from the front lot line, or the vehicular entrance to the garage shall be perpendicular to the front lot line. Hunt stated he understood what Clauson meant. 3 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 9. 1995 Hunt then asked if Clauson could clarify the paragraph inbetween the two; "All portions of a garage, carport or storage area parallel to the street shall be recessed behind the front facade a minimum of ten feet". Clauson stated that if one has a building, and it establishes a front facade, and one has a garage off to the side, then that garage, must at the very least, be recessed 10 ft. behind that facade elevation. Hunt stated, you are talking about the front facade? Clauson, said, yes, the front facade. Clauson stated he thought the thrust of that is the prevent the garage from adding to the bulk massing of the principle front facade, so that it is moved back, it is turned, and placed in the rear quadrant of the lot. Chaikovska asked to be given a definition of storage areas, such as garbage sheds, tool sheds, etc. Clauson stated the definition would encompass all that she mentioned; whatever is used for lawn mowers, outdoor storage of garden equipment, things of that sort. He stated he is seeing, more and more, the use of a garden house. Clauson stated, the next element, and new to the ordinance, is the mentioning of a linking element. He said they want to encourage detaching the garage from the principle building, but frequently, people don't want to detach the garage without having some kind of a breezeway. So, this linking element, which has not been previously provided for in the ordinance, which would allow a detached garage to be attached to a principle structure, may be excluded from the calculation of floor area, provided that it is no more than one story tall or six feet wide, and in this case, 10 feet long. The original consulting recommendation did not have a limit on length, and Clauson stated, that is something that might be considered. The next major area related to basements or subgrades. Clauson stated there was great concern, that at one stage, the recommendation was going to be that all basement preliminaries be included in FAR. Clauson stated his philosophy in this recommendation was that if it is not visible, if it doesn't add to the bulk mass, there is probably not a great need to regulate whether it is a living area, or not. He stated, where subgrade areas become an issue, is where the ground pulls away, either naturally because of the slope or is pulled away, artificially because of excavation, and that excavation adds to the perceptible bulk and mass of the building. He said that in those cases, what they have tried to provide, is an FAR penalty when one exposes the basement and adds to the bulk and mass of the building. So, first of all, we say, normal top plate for the first floor is 18 inches, so you can add 18 inches of exposure free, and that makes sense from a construction standpoint. Then, we say, when it is partially exposed, and natural or finished grade is added, whichever is lower, it is a very simple calculation that the proration of 4 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 9. 1995 exposure is proration of FAR within that floor area. Hunt asked for an explanation saying, if that subgrade portion, the plate of which, exceeds 18 inches, and that happens to be around 100% of the perimeter, then 100% of that subgrade portion is counted in the FAR, is that the way I read it? Clauson said, no, it is the degree to which it is exposed. If it were exposed, let's say, for plate heights of 10 ft., the first 18 inches wouldn't be calculated, but beyond that, it would be calculated. That percentage would then be applied to the FAR within the basement area. Also, if you had a building that from front to back had no reveal, to 100% of reveal, then 50% of the FAR would be counted. Hunt said he would have to re-read it again, because the basis of his question was reading it and applying it, and it looked like the way it read that if any of it was over 18 inches, around 100% of the periphery, then it looked.. ..Let's say, after that subgrade portion was 20-24 inches, around 100% of the periphery. The way Hunt said he read it, is that floor area is multiplied around the percentage above grade, which then becomes 100% of that floor area. Clauson stated that perhaps Hunt had touched on a point that needed further clarification, because that was not the intent. The intent is, that if you have exposed an additional 10% over, 100% around, you have yourself calculating 10% of the total floor area of the basement. Hunt stated, that is what he thought they wanted, so he suggested that Clauson might want to re-look at it. Garton stated she did not understand that the excavation of the exposed area, the entire perimeter; if you just excavated the back side, whatever was above the 18 inches would be calculated as part of the FAR, that was exposed above 18 inches. Clauson answered, to the extent that back is excavated... it is really very close to what is done now, except there is an 18% exposure. Garton stated, Roger was talking about 100% periphery. Clauson said the circumstance that Hunt brought up would be an unusual one and the circumstance that Garton brought up, where things are revealed at the back or some portion of the side, is the more likely circumstance. He was sure they could come up with some language to clarify. Clauson stated the next provision related to lightwells and stairwells on the street side. If you are going to include those, you include them behind the front facade, so they are not sticking out forward. Clauson mentioned issues in respect to volume. The key thing here has been the exterior expression of grandiose stairwells, grandiose entry hall, and that has been characterized in some of the "monster homes" . This provision is designed to control, somewhat, that exterior expression, while still giving the designer latitude. 5 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 9. 1995 In regard to the accessory dwelling unit, what is intended here is to provide for a carriage-type of dwelling unit or cottage-type of dwelling unit. This would allow for a separated structure with a footprint of 450 sq. ft. and the provision presented is up to a maximum of 700 sq. ft., which is the maximum for an ADU. The consultant's recommendation was based on the 450 sq. ft. footprint at two stories, and he recommended 900 sq. ft. Recognizing there may be some issues with that, they set it at 700 which would provide for a second story reduction. Clauson stated height limits have been addressed and articulated somewhat, on page 7, to allow for the varying slopes. He said he had been told by designers that height limits sometimes create difficult design perimeters; this allows for different slope forms and also talks about measuring from the natural or finished grade, whichever is lower. He stated that was an important consideration because of the grade. Hunt asked for a quick clarification; you just say 1/3 the distance between the eaves and the ridge, is that 1/3 up or 1/3 down? Amidon stated it is meant, 1/3 up. Clauson said there are also provisions for a building that is on a slope, that would step down after a certain allowable distance when you connect the ridge line. You would be required to step your building down with the slope. The next provision, with respect to lot area, provides for density reductions on sloping lots. Clauson stated it reiterates, under subgrade areas, that lightwells and stairwells need to be entirely recessed behind the building facade, and is in a recess when it is on the street side. He stated they have added a Division 5, which deals with setting up an appeal board. The basic thrust of this is, that if an applicant cannot, for reasons that they feel are pertinent to the site, meet the design standards, they may bring their design to a Design Review Appeal Board. The provision for setting up the Appeal Board is quite similar to the current makeup of the Ordinance 35 Overlay Board. He said they found, in working with the architects, in general, they felt that the design standards were ones that they could live with, but there would inevitably be some situations where there would be exceptions to the rules. He said the Appeal Board provided that alternative. Clauson said the Design Review Standards began on page 11 of the memorandum, and basically, have two purposes. He said they had heard from many people that the ordinance is not clear because so many of the provisions of the ordinance are found in various definitions. If you have a residential lot in a certain district, 6 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 9. 1995 . you look at that district, and you find out things about setbacks, and so forth. If you did not look to the definition of FAR, you would not understand some of the rules and regulations pertaining to porches, garages, etc. If you did not look to the definition of height, you would not understand how height exactly is measured. So, this is an attempt, to bring all those things which are located through definitional sections and other sections of the ordinance, together in one place. The other intent is to bring forward these residential design standards as part of the ordinance, and include the checklist procedure. The Residential Design Standards are in Section 7-304, on page 13. He referred the Commission to the Appendix to look at what the standards are, and what the problems are that they are intending to address. Clauson said they presented the problem of inconsistent street frontage; they provided standards with respect to building orientation, and build-to lines. In response to the problem of erosion of pedestrian scale, the entries need to be oriented toward the street, and there should be a principle window for any building, toward the street, and there needs to be a one- story street-facing element minimum. In code provision; encourage porches and loggias. The next problem, dominant garages; we have said that the width of the house must be greater than the width of the garage, the garage be recessed behind the front facade, and there be no below grade driveways within the front setback. Clauson said the problem of conflicting scale between existing buildings and new ones; they talk about the inflection of new buildings to existing buildings. If there is an element that is greater than 12 feet on an existing structure that is one story, the new structure has to have a corresponding one-story element adjacent to it. He stated they have provided that that only has to happen once, on one side or the other. This does require that a new building relate, in some way, to the existing structures that are around it. On the problem of awkward areaways, the standard is no areaways, lightwells or stairwells project beyond a building's street facade. On overscaled buildings, he said they have revised the height calculation. Clauson stated that the intention here, was that this would be a staff review checklist. It would not require a committee to do; the standards are readily available to any staff member to review. The checklist would be provided to an applicant, and the applicant 7 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 9. 1995 would be requested particular structure a standard is not available. to indicate on their drawings, how their met the standards. Should the applicant feel appropriate, they have the appeal route He stated that was, in a nutshell, what they were proposing. The memorandum details the kind of outreach that they have had. They have had groups of people who have identified themselves as being interested in the development of this, particularly architects and some members of HPC, some members of Planning and Zoning have attended at various times, and some members of the development and real estate communities. Clauson said they review these with architects in a session where they produce designs based on these standards, and also, he said they have asked the architects to do an exercise where they produce designs based on the straight- across-the board, 15% reduction of FAR. He said they had some very good work and showed a drawing which he said was typical of some of the drawings that were produced. The analysis pointed out some areas which needed changes and those changes have been made; it further suggested it was necessary to have the Appeal Board; most of all, it suggested these changes would be useful and would enhance the quality of buildings that we get. Kerr stated at this point he wanted to come back to the Commission table to ask points of clarification only, not to debate the merits of the proposed ordinance, and then open the meeting to the public for comments. Kerr stated that on page 3 of the resolution memorandum, the first section, on floor area, specifically, B, where it talks about decks, balconies, porches, etc. Kerr read where it said, the calculation of the floor area of a building or a portion, thereof, shall not include these things unless the area of these features is greater than 25%. He said, if the area of those things reaches more than 25%, then what happens? Clauson answered, then they are calculated, and only that which is greater than 25% is calculated. Kerr stated that it did not say that. Kerr questioned another portion of the text, Division 5, regarding the membership of the Design Review Appeal Board. It says it designates three members from HPC, two members, plus the alternate, from Planning and Zoning. Then it goes on to say, that the alternate shall replace the regular member. He' said, if the regular member goes off, for whatever reason, and he is from HPC, and the alternate is from P&Z, then that mix goes the other way, contrary to the defined makeup of the group. He felt that needed some work to clarify how that is going to happen. Kerr stated the clearest way to do it would be that the alternate becomes a regular member until such time as the regular member is re-appointed by 8 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 9. 1995 Councilor Board, or whatever. Garton stated she presumed, that also in the code, the formula for FAR; height, and another dimention, is described. She said it was nowhere in the revisions, and the revisions were all about how we calculate. Clauson said the formula for floor area is provided in the text for reference. He said the basic calculation has not changed, and on page 3, under Article 3. Definitions; floor area means the sum of the gross horizontal areas of each story of the building measured from the exterior walls. Garton said, it did not say what the allowable FAR is. Clauson stated that is described in each zone district. Garton said, then the bottom line is, that we are not reducing FAR, we are changing how we calculate it. Clauson stated, that lS correct. In every district, floor area is specified, as a maximum by lot size. Chaikovska stated that if Clauson had an applicant, and that applicant goes through the entire review process, and there are some differences that come between HPC and these standards, what happens to that applicant? Once that applicant has been approved by HPC, she said she assumed it would come before staff for these various checklists. How would you provide for this two-step process? Amidon answered saying, with existing structures there may be some conflicts and in some cases the applicant would have to go to the Design Appeal Board. Chaikovska stated there might be some comments from the public and she would not like to see the applicants go through it once, twice, three times or four, like being bounced back and forth. Clauson said he agreed with that. Hunt wanted more clarification on volume on page 5 of the memorandum. He said before they had sort of a sliding scale, now anything above 10 feet is just a simple multiplier of now you count two sq. ft. for everyone sq. ft., right? Clauson said the key thing here was the exterior expressions about it. He said, here we are saying, the exterior expression is really an issue and what we want to do is penalize certain kinds of monumental exterior expressions of volume, if in the building. What the design consultant has said is, it is really what goes on in the interior. He said in many respects, it is more liberal than the current. Tygre asked regarding the building elements section, it says all residential buildings must have a one-story, street-facing element which comprises at least 20% of the building's overall width; would that apply to things like townhouses, which are traditionally straight facade? Clauson answered, yes. Chairman Kerr asked to take public comment. 9 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 9. 1995 Paul Tribune asked for clarification regarding lightwells in the front of a building. He did not understand how one could get light down to a basement and asked for an illustration. Clauson illustrated with the help of a drawing, saying one could knock out a lightwell to the front of the facade. Kerr suggested vertical plane front" facade. perhaps rewording the language to say, behind the established by the building's "formost or most Bob Hughes spoke in regard to garages. He said at a brown-bag luncheon meeting was the last he had seen of the garage exemption, then 250 sq. ft. Anything in between 250 and 600 sq. ft. you would be charged at one-quarter foot. Now it is a volume of one-half a foot. Clauson stated the original proposal from the consultant was exactly as Hughes had stated, that after 250 sq. ft. to 600 sq. ft. you would charge out at .25. Staff's feeling was that it did not respresent a very significant change, and that charging out at .5, over 250 sq. ft., you both allowed more design latitude by allowing it to go to 600 sq. ft., and at the same time, you were forcing a little more significant choice over 250 sq. ft. One thing he did not point out when going through the ordinance, was a key thing, and that was the change in the parking requirement. Consistent with our own efforts to minimize the importance of the motorcar in the design of our community, and to put it in a more accurate perspective based on what may be available within a community, and public transit outside the community, we have been getting strong signals that it is worth looking at the overall parking requirement. That requirement presently is, one car per bedroom, which means that a four-bedroom house rates a four car requirement. He said, we think that four cars per dwelling unit is excessive and the designing to that induces substantial difficulties, that in fact, people that live in Aspen, people that come to Aspen, can probably do pretty well with two vehicles in a full size house. To the extent that they need extra; they can provide for it, but the ordinance doesn't need to provide for it, so the reduction is, two vehicles per single family house. Clauson stated that two vehicles can certainly be accommodated simply in a 350 sq. ft. garage, or in a 250 sq. ft. garage, one vehicle can be accommodated with another vehicle parked on the exterior. So, he thought the reduction in the parking requirement goes hand-in-hand with the approach that tries to minimize the way in which the garage element dominates it. Kerr stated that, then the new regulation would be two parking spaces per dwelling unit, without reference to bedrooms at all. Clauson said, correct. 10 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 9. 1995 Hughes stated that it was not Mr. Solomon that pumped that up to half a foot, but staff. Amidon added, that it was feedback with him. Brooke Peterson said he had a question about the procedure, rather than the design. He said it is stated that people that have completed development applications would be exempt from the moritorium on the issue of building permits. He was not clear on what the definition of the completed development application was. Specifically, he said there had been a number of people that he had been aware of that had been through the Interium Overlay Review that haven't received building permits, and probably haven't even applied for building permits. He asked where do those people fall into the moritorium, or process? Leslie Lamont answered what they defined as a completed application is someone who has submitted an application to us for a land use review process, or if they did not, which is very unusual, if someone did not require a land use review process, they just wanted to instead submit a building permit, that that application for a building permit had to be completed by the various standards and requirements we have for a building permit application. Lamont stated that the people who have come through the Interium Review process, they had submitted a completed application, had their review; the day that their review was completed, our code states you have 18 months then in which to pull a building permit based upon that approval that you received. She said, the Interium Review Process was interesting because there were some people who went through the process who did not have to comply with the process. They went through our Review Committee and the Review Committee found them inconsistent with the guidelines. Basically, though, they went through the land use review process, they complied with what they had to do in order to get a building permit. So, based on the date that they got their approval, they have 18 months to pull a building permit. Pederson said that answered his question, but he pointed out that the draft resolution does not say that. John Torinus stated that since staff wanted to encourage separate garages they will have to consider giving a bonus FAR to those who do design separate garages. Also, in regard to garages, does the entire garage count, if you don't have an alley to access? Clauson answered, no. Amidon, stated they are not suggesting a bonus for totally detached garages, although that has been discussed. One thing they are giving, though, if you detach your garage, and you have a breezeway-type of connection, the breezeway is not counted in FAR. 11 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 9. 1995 Torinus stated it would be encouragement for separate garages if there was some minor FAR bonus, such as allowing 500 sq. ft. or something. He stated that simplification was a stated objective and he noticed that the consultant had suggested using one grade as a measure. Why are you insisting that you have to use natural or finished, whichever is less. He said it sounded to him totally cumbersome and burdensome when one of your stated purposes is to simplify the code. He asked why can't they just pick one of them that works the best for most city property, and use it. He stated that trees had always been major item, particularly in the west end. He stated, it would be helpful, so there is not a mystery about it, that major trees would influence the setbacks. He asked, what comes first, the trees or the setback. He stated he had a whole grove of big trees on his property, and if he were building a new house right now on that site, he would cut down some massive cottonwood trees. He felt something should be stated about major trees. His final point was that lots in the city are oriented north to south so that corner lots, which are in predominately two to three lot parcels, will always be on-side; the entrance would always be required to be on-side, and the major windows would be required to be on-side, which would be an east-west orientation. He felt it to be arbitrary and unfair, and not necessary. Perry Harvey stated that in looking at the text that there was some language recognizing that certain areas of town, i.e., Cemetery Lane, Aspen Meadows, Roaring Fork Drive and the base of Shadow Mountain, don't have that alley access. He said, maybe the road, rather than a 90 degree turn is a more gentle curve. In other words, he said, recognize the practical difficulty of complying with, and comforming to, these standards that exist by the very nature of certain areas in town. He said he found a conflict in the purpose section under the Design Review. He said it talked about the purpose being to promote the pedestrian-like nature of town, "public places conducive to walking" is the language; and yet, when you talk about a 250 sq. ft. space, not only for cars, but storage and all of the things we collect, he thought staff was not recognizing the need for more than 250 sq. ft. He said a pick- up truck, a Ford Explorer; these are cars that aren't going to fit with bikes for four people and he felt it would push, not only vehicles on the streets and onto driveways, but he felt it would be counter-productive to an environment that is conducive to pedestrians and to walking, but they may get a lot of storage on the porches and areas that staff is trying to promote to bring up facades. He stated he would like to see some language referring to the Design Review Committee's ability to make recommendations to other Boards and there was no consideration given to landscaping or fencing. 12 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 9. 1995 Stan McCormick asked for clarification of how height is dealt with. Clauson answered that the proposed ordinance provided a sketch by the consultants of how height is handled, finished grade, natural grade, whichever is lower. He said, basically, what they were showing was going to 1/3 between the ridge and the eave on a steep slope and on a 4:12 or S:12 pitch, you go to the half-way point. On a 3: 12 slope, you go right to the ridge. He said it was providing for different pitches. Jim (Public) made mention to the first page of the memorandum, "any building permits that are inconsistent with the Resolution will be suspended from issuance beginning May 9, 1995". He asked what if this isn't adopted until May 23rd, or June? Lamont answered, that May 9th is the first public hearing and it puts people on notice that we are changing the code. He also made reference to the bottom of page 4, subgrade areas, specifically, the IS inches above grade and the definition of top plate. Kerr stated it was agreed by Clauson that clarification needed to be done in this area. Jim also asked about the definition of exterior expression and lightwells. Gideon Kaufman, property owner, Aspen property R15B, spoke on behalf of himself and a number of his neighbors. He stated he was involved in the annexation to the City of Aspen for the R15B, and for the Aspen Grove area, and other areas, that do not currently have a problem; staff is creating a major problem for particular neighborhoods. He said what they are encouraging is, for someone to come in and tear down a house and rebuild it, rather than try to make an existing house comply with a lot of these particular si tuations. So, for a neighborhood that has uniformly said we don't have a problem, this document applying to those neighborhoods will create a major problem. For example, Kaufman said, many of us have garages already. When we built the houses there was 500 sq. ft. exemption. If that garage now counts 250 sq. ft., you have to find a way to make that square footage usable or you are giving up a lot of your square footage in a greatly reduced FAR to begin with. FAR on slope; the County doesn't count slope against FAR, many of our lots would have most of their FAR taken away from them. He said, you talk about a situation here in terms of pedestrian-friendly, if you come up to the Aspen Grove area with all those winding roads, it's not pedestrian-friendly. Kaufman stated they did not want sidewalks put into their neighborhood; they don't want to encourage people out walking on the streets, there are a tremendous amount of houses in the neighborhood that have flat roofs; you talk about discouraging, what is happening here is we have taken a dilemma which existed in the R6 Zone, west end, possibly the east end, and we are trying to come up with a city-wide solution. He said, to me, a city-wide solution is going to create a larger problem in 13 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 9. 1995 some of the unique neighborhoods which currently exist, and what you are really saying to people is to make this work for your place, for existing houses, like mine, which over time you try to add slowly to it, you are better off raising that house and starting over again, so you can make the most out of these particular regulations. What that says to all of us, is we aren't going to tear our houses down and build new houses, we're going to sell to somebody else. He urged to keep to what he thought was the understanding, which was, the R15 neighborhoods would not be included in these significant changes; would not have their FAR's adjusted, directly or indirectly, because these particular things dramtically affect us. He said he is very concerned that neighborhoods that are functioning nicely, are suddenly being imposed upon in a way that is going to be tremendously detrimental to those of us that live in this neighborhood. Ramona Markalunas stated she had a house that was built in 1957, on a corner lot on the west end. She asked to know how remodeling is affected by this new development proposal. Clauson answered as far as remodeling touches upon aspects of this code, it is affected, to the extent that it doesn't, it isn't. He said, that is to say that if you have a garage that is non-conforming, that is in some way oriented differently or too large, or whatever, and what you are talking about in remodeling is building a porch, then what is evaluated is the porch, and under this particular aspect, the porch would be liberalized. Clauson said only those building elements that are proposed to be new or redeveloped, are those to which the code would be devised. Clauson stated these issues with respect to height-line projects represent the way our ordinances deal with zoning changes. Whenever a zoning change is proposed, the potential for affecting that area begins at the point at which that zoning change is brought before planning and zoning. The ordinance provides for a period of six months to adoption, so that if, from this date, nothing is adopted by Council within six months, then the proposed ordinance is nullity, and that is the limit to which things may be held into suspension. Clauson said that whatever the feelings about the appropriateness of this approach, this is the approach that is specified in our existing ordinances, this is simply Section 4 as it is written on page 20. Kerr stated that the Commission was not going to try and sit in judgment on the code or the constitutionality of the code, we are going to try and make decisions about land use planning and whether this resolution, this code, is good for the City or not. The legal merits are for another forum to decide. 14 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 9. 1995 Bob Hughes stated that the notion that P&Z being able to create a law, in effect, by resolution, clearly violates the City's charter, which requires anything that affects a person's property to be done by ordinance, and you are not doing that. Kerr said that as he understood it, if P&Z didn't take any action tonight, it's not even done by P&Z, it's done by staff. Paul (Public) stated that there was a problem here because there are so many questions and confusions over what is being proposed here, and he did not think it would be fair to adopt something without a record and some clarification. He said the Hunt's, sitting to his left, protest this ordinance because they have, over the years, maintained their residence in an Aspen-like fashion and Ann Hunt feels that she is being victimized by what is going on between the point when the code was revised, until now. She has been asking questions I don't know how to answer; how you can reconcile her development with everything else that has occurred around her. The standard that is very difficult to adhere to, is that her development, if she wants to expand her property as she does, how do you reconcile what she wants to do with her property with everybody else around her. How many properties does this affect? Paul stated he had the same confusion that everybody else had. He said he had been involved in over ten years of representing the City in code simplification processes. He said this proposal is heading in the opposite direction. Trying to restrict the size of garages would really penalize the family-oriented property owners. Peter Kelly, a property owner, R15B Aspen Grove, stated that under the proposed standards the house that he could build is in the 3,100 to 3,200 ft. range. He said with these proposed revisions, because of the slope and garage reductions, etc., he is in the 2,200 ft. range with a one-car garage. He has a daughter, a wife, has been here for 15 years, and downvalley for another 6 years, and he is looking at coming back. He did not think that with a 20 year resident those are the kind of restrictions you want to enforce upon me when I am trying to come back here and probably be the kind of person you want to have here in town. We have already got that tremendously reduced FAR in R15B from 4,500 to 3,100 to 3,200, whatever it is; for me to be forced to build 2,200 to 2,300 ft. on a 16,000 ft. lot, when what we really want is a 3,100 ft. house, he does not feel that is too much to ask for someone in his position. Tom (Public) felt that there should be some identification as to where this proposal is going to be in affect, because he has been told by certain people in City Council that it does not include 15B, others say it does. He felt there should be identification 15 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 9. 1995 where this ordinance is to take affect, and he not be a part of it, because he did not consider himself in a town residential area. He said he is in an alpine residential area and wants to maintain that. He said he did not want to be penalized, and this would definitely penalize him. Ann Hunt wondered how many homes this would apply to in the west end. She said what this proposed ordinance was doing to her was forcing her to sell to a developer because it is just too restrictive. Beverly Cohen, a realtor in Aspen, said that what she was hearing is that we have an ordinance that has a lot of holes in it; a lot of questions and a lot of holes. Kerr closed the public hearing at this point and stated it would undoubtedly be reopened again. Chaikovska stated that from the comments from the public, as well as from the Commissioners, that she had four major areas of concern. The first one runs together all of the issues of clarification of any given provision here. She felt those issues were easy to deal with. The second group of of things deals with procedural issues, which are the "ping-pong" effect, as it was called. Whether it is HPC, Board of Adjustment, how do you deal with those, and again, those are fairly easy to deal with. Then she said, we come to the difficult ones, which we need a lot more imput on and maybe have staff study some more and come back with recommendations; that has to do with substance of changes. These are adding provisions, changing provisions, natural features, whether it is trees or landscaping, and the big concern is the garage. Personally, she said, she saw the garage issue as a big issue because 250 sq. ft., you are talking about a 1-1/2 car garage. She stated lots of people have storage areas which detracts from garage space and she said she, personally, felt the two-car garage was much more feasible for this day and age and how people live. She stated she would like the garage issue looked at a little more. The fourth area of her concern is, who's covered? She thought Gideon Kaufman's point was a good one, but his area is not the only one, so she would like a little study put into that. Tygre stated she agreed with what Chaikovska said. Although she said the public brought up good points, the memorandum does discuss other options, such as across-the-board reduction of FAR at various numbers, and she felt maybe we could start by deciding if we like this whole conceptual approach to begin with, and then go into some more of the details of whether we should discuss it on a neighborhood to neighborhood basis. 16 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 9. 1995 Kerr had a question for staff, and stated that if the Commission were tonight to make a motion rejecting the proposed resolution, and all other options, what happens to this period of suspension. He said the reason he asked the questions, is because he is really concerned about the underlying fairness issue and the procedural "shinannigans" that we find ourselves in. He did not feel there was an improper intent on anyone's part, but he was extremely concerned about the fairness issue. He said there were many things in the proposals that he liked and was ready to push for, but he was not prepared to have it become infacto law, while working on it. Lamont answered that the interim process that staff has been working under since July, which was adopted with the same similar adoption review process, and using the same sections of the code, is due to expire May 30th. If the P&Z tables this proposal tonight, you have had your public hearing and the public is on notice that we are proposing changes to the code; if you deny it, then we would just be operating under our interim overlay review process until May 30th. The only way it could be extended beyond May 30th is Council amending the ordinance to extend it. Kerr asked if the extension would come before P&Z? Lamont stated, no. Blaich stated he heard things tonight maybe for the first time or heard more clearly, and although he was quite positive about the general approach and he felt the intent was good, he thought the points that Chaikovska made have to be given more consideration. He thought, particularly, the substantial changes, the garages and trees were two of them, and he thought now hearing the question about the R15B; he did not know what areas can make the same claim, but just on the basis of the R15B, everything has to be very clearly understood. He stated he was not prepared to vote positively tonight, if it comes to a vote, and he felt it should be a tabled issue until it is all clarified. Chaikovska stated she was still not clear and asked if the Commission tabled the proposal, it would still be in affect? Lamont answered, yes. There was disagreement among staff, but Clauson stated they did not want to argue among staff, and stated they tried to work out the policy with the City Attorney, but said maybe they have not covered all various presentations. He turned to Section 7-11-05, which is the section entitled, Temporary Suspension of Building Permits. He said that section spoke to the issue, and says whenever the City Council and Commission has properly initiated the developing a developing application to amend the text of this chapter, and the Commission has, by resolution, recommended to the City Council approval of such amendment, no building permit shall be issued by the chief building official which would be prohibited by the proposal for a period of six 17 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 9. 1995 months. Clauson said he took that to read that not until the Commission is satisfied that they have an ordinance change that they want to recommend to Council, and have so stated that by resolution, does this suspension occur. He said, if the Commission were to table it today, to have further consideration by worksession, that you have not yet recommended to Council a specific amendment. Kerr asked if the attorneys in the public audience agreed with that interpretation. One attorney stated he agreed with it, but stated it still did not address the question as to whether or not the P&Z body could ever do anything to affect people's lives. Kerr asked did the attorney's agree that if by tabling the Commission would not be affirmatively recommending to Council. The attorneys did agree. Clauson stated there was another aspect to all this, and he said that is why staff has attempted to more strongly state, in Section 4, and that is, that we are talking about a building permit issued by the chief building official, which would be permitted by the post amendment. He said there are other reviews that might be affected, so if the Commission were not to adopt a resolution favoring this tonight, but table it, and let's say, three weeks hence, you did adopt it; and yet, somebody who had entered into process had not yet put a building permit, they might be put at risk that that subsequent adoption might in some way conflict with their permit. He said it is hard to imagine the potential conflicts because people may have building permits that are not in conflict with this at all. He said there is some possibility of future conflict, and in trying to anticipate this we may tonight abate certain that might affect any future residential development activities. Kerr stated the next scenerio would be, if this body does not do anything before May 30th, what happens then? Clauson answered that Ordinance 35 would expire, unless Council were to extend it, and let us say, in the circumstance, that they did not extend it, then these provisions of review would no longer intervene. Hunt wanted to comment on the thrust of what was going on, and said there are questions as to where it should apply, particularly to the R15B. He said he would prefer to table this evening and give staff direction on problems so that they could come back with a refined resolution, and we continue this process. He said that tabling this does not stop the magic May 9th date, because we have not passed a resolution. In the interim, in this period, we are still working under Ordinance 35, and he felt there was no problem there. Hunt said they needed to look at the garages and look at R15B very seriously as being excluded from this ordinance, and he would like to hear from staff if there are any other areas. IS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 9. 1995 Buettow stated that before getting into the specifics of how we want to change this particular proposal he wanted to get back to Tygre's comments about particular alternatives. In particularly in giving some guidance to the Council for changes, do we want to discuss any of these alternatives, do we want to exclude any of the alternatives? Lamont stated she included the alternatives in the memorandum because they are several different ideas that have surfaced since we have been in this interim process. The five alternatives are intended to show you the other ideas that have surfaced that people have had. She said the resolution that you have before you is what staff is recommending, not the alternatives. Garton thought that FAR wasn't the problem, it was how it was calculated. She said it was very important to her to continue with what was recommended by the Design Symposium, and ultimately, the consultant and staff. MOTION Garton moved to table the proposal and the public hearing to May 16, 1995. Hunt seconded the motion. Discussion of Motion Garton felt directions had been very well given to staff already, mainly through Chaikovska's comments. She only saw the R15B area as the only area to be excluded from this, with some strong direction. She said staff had already made their recommendations regarding garages and she felt the Commission had to think about that. She stated she would like staff to come back with the suggested language changes, which was easy to do, and with the Design Review Appeal, somehow the process of that tightened up and made into one appeal. Hunt said he wanted to give staff some of the Commission's thoughts concerning the garages and landscaping. Kerr stated the motion also needs to include the continuation of the public hearing, and he said the Commission had to determine a date. He said he and Garton would not be available on the 23rd as they would be out of town. He said he felt the basic proposal that they had needed a lot of treatment, and felt it needed more than sending it back to staff with suggestions. There were a lot of things the public had mentioned and they should continue to watch what is going on, as they do now, with the Overlay Review Committee. As for the issue of the garages, he said, that may'take a whole night of discussion just to decide and weight the pros and 19 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 9. 1995 cons, and he felt the problem was bigger than what could be dealt with in just one or two public sessions. He felt some of the things needed a real "flushing out". As for the alternatives, #1 was his preference. Chaikovska stated she agreed with Kerr regarding the alternatives. She said her personal preference was Alternative #4, until such time as they could decide whatever ultimate document we come up with, would be acceptable to the community. She said this was a major change and it affects people more than they think it does. Clauson stated on the 16th of May, which is a scheduled meeting, there are some items that are optional and could be "bumped" for further consideration of this. Kerr stated they needed to select a certain date to table and continue the public hearing. Kerr reiterated that the meetings were getting longer and longer and the Commission's work was not effective once they go past a certain point, so on the 16th, they would only be able to deal with items that go very quickly or they can be easily moved to some other date. He left it up to staff to adjust the agenda as needed on the 16th. VOTE Voting commenced, all were unanimous in favor, motion carried. Gideon Kaufman commented as a member of the public and stated that May was a month where a lot of people get away for a little bit. As there are a lot of important issues here, he would hope that these kind of meetings could take place when it is not off-season so that as many people as possible would have the opportunity to attend. Kerr stated he recognized that and when he came on the Commission, eight years ago, it did not even meet from mid April to the first of June. He said they basically recessed for six weeks and now it seems in their workload now, it is the busiest time of the year. He said he understood the problem, but he did not know how else to proceed. Steve Buettow excused himself from the remainder of the meeting due to conflicts of interest. 20 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 9. 1995 L'AUBERGE CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW Chairman L'Auberge hearing. Kerr stated Conditional this Use was a Review continued public and he re-opened hearing of the public Gideon Kaufman represented the applicant and stated on April lSth while it was tabled, they got two components that were approved and have come back for the Conditional Use Component; there had been some questions relating to utilities, as well as parking. Since that time, and what was spelled out in Lamont's memorandum, they had a meeting with the various utility entities, and have resolved most of the issues. He said staff had recommendations of approval and he stated he and Lamont had met earlier today, and they went over just a few minor changes that he requested. He said he would go over those, but otherwise they are in agreement with staff in terms of the conditions. He said the first condition was Condition #1, it includes Rocky Mountain Natural Gas. At the meeting it was explained that Rocky Mountain Natural Gas does not participate the way everybody else does; they don't respond. What he felt would be helpful, was to say that the plan has been reviewed and approved by the water, electric and engineering departments and he does not think they will ever get a response from Rocky Mountain Natural Gas, and they will submit to them, but he did not want to have it as a condition, in case they do not respond, and therefore we cannot move forward. Kaufman stated, in terms of Condition 7-d, it says, "the applicant shall file the appropriate deed restrictions with the Housing Office for the deed restricted dwelling unit". He said the only thing there was to add, "if approved by Council", because Council is the one making the decision whether or not they want cash-in- lieu or the deed restriction. Kaufman said the only other change had to deal with Condition 17, which reads, "this conditional use approval is conditioned upon successful completion of the variance request process", and he said they added to that, "or PUD" , because, in the event, we do not get the variance from the Board of Adjustment, we would have to go through the PUD process. Kerr stated this was a public hearing comments regarding this application. closed the public hearing. and asked if there were any There were none, and Kerr 21 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 9. 1995 MOTION Blaich moved to approve the Conditional Use of the L'Auberge Lodge with the conditions outlined in staff's memorandum dated May 9th, with the added condition, "any substantial change in the use of this conditional use as a lodge shall require an amendment to the Conditional Use Review and other applicable requirements of the code". Garton seconded. Discussion of Motion Hunt stated he had one concern. project, but he could also see desirability of condominiumization. He felt this was a great lodge in the future, possibly the Kaufman said to forget the condominiumization, for the moment; if this goes to a lodge use to a residential use, the code says that is a change in use, and we would have to come before you again. So, what I am saying, is since the code requires us to come before you for change in use, don't you have your protection, under the code (addressed to Lamont)? Lamont answered, We do, very technically, we do. Kaufman asked if Lamont wanted him to put in the conditions, in the event the applicant changes the use from a lodge to a residential, it has to come back to the P&Z, because it was approved under Conditional Use for a Lodge. Garton stated, since they were discussing the above, why did Tom Bracewell, in the Aspen Sanitation District memorandum, Item 4, say that the applicant will provide the District with written assurances that the cabins will continue to be operated as a lodge under one ownership..? Kaufman answered that they had had a meeting on that and it was all resolved. The concern that the Sanitation District had was the kind of system that we are being obligated to put in; they do not want to be dealing with a lot of different situations, a lot of different owners. It was discussed, and as long as there was a condominium association, if that ever happened, the association would work it out. Garton stated she was agreeable to this added condition; the one Lamont is working on right now. Hunt requested to include the modification 7-d, the applicant shall file the appropriate deed restrictions with the Housing Office for any approved deed restricted dwelling. Blaich questioned how necessary the additional condition was, because he said they would have to come back anyway for a change in condition, so he felt it was writing something in there that 22 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 9. 1995 wasn't necessary. If legal council says we should have it, it is something that will protect us, I am not against it. Hunt stated he would be happier to vote with the condition in. Mooney said he did not know if it really gets to what we are talking about here. He asked, where do we draw the line, and how do we enforce the line, between someone who condominiumizes these and individually then uses them as a time share that they are still a lodge entity that is running them, but the nature of the business is changed. They are privately owned, they are not really on the market 100% of the time as a lodge; it can be someone that privately owns that condominium uses it as a residence part of the year, and then it is back in a lodge-pool part of the year. He again asked, where do we draw the line here? He said, I think the essence is not the residential use, but whether or not it is going to become condominiumized and we are going to have twenty-two different entities on this property making private ownership decisions about any aspect of this expansion. VOTE Voting commenced, vote was unanimous in favor, motion carried. Kerr addressed Lamont concerning parking. She brought up the text amendment to allow a lodge as a Conditional Use in the Office Zone District, and said they really did not focus on what the parking requirement would be. Parking in all our zone districts is listed by residential, commercial, etc., and in the Office Zone District where it says Lodge it says non-applicable. She said what she was recommending was to propose a change to the Office Zone that would allow .7 spaces per lodge room which is consistent with our other lodge zone districts. Kerr said that it doesn't apply to this applicant, does it, because they have more. Lamont said, they have more. Kerr stated, so, this is a general... Lamont said, as they could tell from her conditions of approval, staff is working with the applicant on their parking plan. Kerr asked if this was a recommended text amendment? Lamont stated, yes. Kerr then asked, does this have to be noticed as a public hearing? Lamont answered, that the last time a situation like this arose, the City Attorney advised us that since a public hearing was kept alive regarding the site, those who are interested are put on notice. Also, text amendments are not final approval, you are recommending to Council, so there will be a public hearing in June. Hunt said he was wondering because most of the lodges in the Office Zone District are probably under Lodge Preservation or something 23 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 9. 1995 like that or non-conforming. He said he did not mind this as a guideline, but there could be the present attitude of the Council that they want to help these lodges stay, or do something; a lot of the old lodges may not be able to comply with this, he felt it did not give flexibility to deal with old lodge issues. Tygre stated that if a lodge is already under a lodge Overlay, whatever it is, then this wouldn't apply to them, would it? Lamont answered, it would apply to those lodges in Office Zone District. She said Hunt mades a good point, but if we don't do something now, then we are going to forward the text amendment that says lodges are Conditional Use in the Office Zone and then you don't have a parking requirement for lodges in that zone. Other than L' Auberge, no one has talked to us about expanding their lodge; if the text amendment passes, people may want to make their lodge conforming and it would be an issue we would be dealing with. Gideon Kaufman said, following up on that could you not do that by instead of .2, maybe reduce via payment in lieu and make that a larger number. That takes into account that some of the existing lodges that may not be able to physically on site provide it, by via payment in lieu you may not be penalizing some of the older lodges. Kerr stated, if you make the two numbers the same it doesn't mean you will allow them to do cash-in-lieu, but you are giving yourself the flexibility to do it that way. Lamont stated, so, just say, .7 per bedroom, which may be reduced via cash-in-lieu, and our special review process is designed to decide whether is is appropriate or not. Kerr and Kaufman agreed. MOTION Garton moved to recommend to Council the addition of a parking requirement for lodges in the office zone district as stated in staff's memorandum dated May 9, 1995, and amended here. Hunt seconded I vote commenced, unanimous in favor, motion carried. WATER PLACE AFFORDABLE HOUSING SUBDIVISION SPA AMENDMENT. GMQS EXEMPTION. CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW AND SPECIAL REVIEW Kim Johnson represented on behalf of staff, and she said in preparation for tonight's meeting, I was thinking that we should be reviewing the individual review categories, so in taking the original list of 42 conditions, she listed them as to being 24 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 9. 1995 pertinent to subdivision reviews, some to conditional use, etc. She stated she had consolidated one or two together, or deleted them altogether, since now we are working under a conceptual review format. She hoped this would be clearer for the Commission when discussing the road issues, that would be more under subdivision; the park issue would be more under the Special Review for Open, etc. There is nothing really substantial in this, except that she met with the fire marshall today and he gave her a letter which formalizes his position that all the structures on top of the hill need to be sprinklered. If there happens to be any blockage on that road, that is the only way for the fire department to get in, so she has added that as a condition of approval. Johnson stated they had opened up the public hearing on May 2, 1995 and it was determined at that time that this should be a conceptual review, so what we are doing now is going through the proj ect, looking at it, and trying to bring to the surface issues that the applicant will need to work on for their final submission. She felt that by working off of this set of conditions of approval they will be guided, at least, towards where staff was when we first opened this item on May 2nd. We heard a lot of public input on the 2nd and a lot of those issues were relating to visual impact, traffic, road safety concerns, and the open space issue and park development. Perhaps, general density questions also, although we heard some people discussing reducing the density which would lesson the traffic impact, and others said, as long as we are going for new housing at this site, and make it denser. She stated there had been no new information to present from the applicant's perspective, since May 2nd, so she recommended that the Commission review this applicant as conceptual and forward it to the Council with this list of conditions. Hunt stated that at the last meeting he was the one who tabled this application, and he was holding out regarding the ownership aspect of this. He said, my concern is if this is essential community employee housing, how are we going to retain this complex in the essential employee housing pool. Hunt stated his worry was, a fireman buys Lot 1, and if the fireman goes out of town for any reason, or retires, or what have you, how do we quarantee that that is going to be sold to another essential employee? I don't know how you do that when you, basically, sell it on the market. Steve Barwick, Assistant City Manager, stated that they were in the process of finalizing a different deed restriction with ANA, so these units will be tied to employment with the City of Aspen. As an employee leaves the City of Aspen they will have, with the recommendation of the Housing Office, ISO days in which to sell the unit to another approved, City of Aspen, employee. If that doesn't happen, the City will step in and buy it temporarily and sell it 25 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 9. 1995 to another city employee. Hunt said, good, that takes care of my major problem with this. Garton asked, when do we expect to see the final RO ordinance? Lamont answered, that is coming up soon, isn't it, Stan? Clauson stated he had not brought his calendar, but within a month. Garton said it was linked to this project a lot. Barwick stated we have all Category 4 in ROs. We have 9 ROs and 7 Category 4s. It is not that the City expects to put people in there with those kind of incomes and assets, really, it is more for flexibility. Recognizing that we have a reduced pool of people who can go in here, we want to make sure that we have flexibility in each unit to put somebody in there who might approach those limits. He said, we told the Housing Office, if they could mix and match, we could certainly live with a mix of Category 2s, 3s and 4s, and just a few ROs, but we may have to move those around to avoid having to move people from unit to unit when different employees come and then leave. The Housing Office said, fine, we understand the need for this. Mooney asked if they were going to change ownerships, according to the pecking order that comes in, above the people that are already living here? Barwick stated the priorities are going to primarily be emergency service workers and also recruitment into the City. He said, right now, they have actually no police officers living in the City of Aspen, perhaps two, and they had a real problem with emergency response workers and we need to get them back into the City of Aspen so they can be here when they need to respond. The second real area of concern we have is with recruitment. He stated the City is a unique employer in this community, in that, we recruit a lot of our employees from outside of the valley. The nature of our work is far more specific, and our recruitments tend to be either state-wide or nation-wide, and therefore, we have a really hard time getting employees here. The residency requirements of the existing affordable housing units, and the unavailability of those to anybody unless they have been here four years, makes it almost impossible. Jasmine Tygre dismissed herself from the meeting. Mooney asked Barwick, why are you limiting yourself to the numbers you are requesting here in the high categories? Barwick answered we are going to have a lot of category 2, and category 3-type of income people in these units, it is merely for flexibility that we have requested the higher limit. You can move down that category, there is no necessity to sell it to somebody who is in the category 4 or RO income. 26 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 9. 1995 Johnson stated, to clarify then, Stan (directed towards Stan Clauson), is that ability to move up and down in the ranks for category 2s and 3s going to be limited or appropriate to rental units, whereas it seems that the project is being focused as a sale project. How are you going to do that, if it is a category 4 sales price? Barwick answered, these are all going to be sold at construction price only, and we will be selling the land probably for $10 under the unit. So, the sales prices, right now, based upon the project, will range from about $150,000 to about $240,000 dollars. We feel that even our lowest paid employees can, through some help, get into the $150,000 range. They may have to rent out bedrooms to other City employees or go into joint ownership agreements. Mooney asked why they are building single-family homes, and not multi-units? Barwick stated, part of the reason why is the recruitment aspect, we don't have any other single-family houses in the City we can use for recruitment. Usually, when we try to recruit managers and department heads on a managerial level, most of the people come from cities in which a single-family house is affordable; they are coming with families, and it is difficult to convince them to get into a four-plex type of unit. Even if it is affordable, they are typically not willing to make that kind of choice. Cris Caruso, of Engineering, added, that they looked at a fair density for that area, and construction cost of a duplex unit verses a single-family home; our duplex units are within $10,000 of the construction costs of a single-family home. He said, we are looking at a pre-manufactured type of log construction that helps us bring the cost down on single family homes and it makes sense to go with a neighborhood approach, a nice-feel approach, given that the single-family homes would be almost as affordable as the duplex units. Chaikovska asked if they are selling for construction costs of a home, what if you come out over budget on construction? Tom Stevens answered, one, we will raise prices, and number two, part of this project is selling some of the City's existing units to people. We are trying to get $300,000 to $500,000 out of those that can be used towards meeting any construction overages in this project. He said the possibility may also exist if we come in on budget that we might be able to use those dollars to have the City own one, maybe, perhaps two of these units and then use them as rental units. 27 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 9. 1995 Chaikovska stated if you are going I understand it, you are not going say, kick in another $10,000. to pre-sell all these lots, as to go back to these people and Barwick said that banks require that contingent funds be set aside, not necessarily generated in cash and put into the bank and ready to use, but at least earmarked as potential use for a project and then any overruns then come out of that. If the financing goes to where the City finances the entire project, and then sells or rents it, even within that plan, the banks still require for a contingent fund to be identified and typically, they are 10% of the construction costs. Chaikovska said, the City financing will then be using public funds, and this has been billed as a project where no public funds are being used, therefore, it is used strictly from the sale of the lots, and then, if there is a cost overrun, again, I ask the same question, where does it come from? Barwick answered, another assurance-builder that goes along with this proj ect, is that with this pre-manufactured type of construction, we are going to have contracters on board with firm prices and we dealing with a raw site;it is not like the City Hall revovation, where you go and you don't know what you find. We are going to know, pretty well, what we have to deal with out there, and we will set up a contingent contract with the builder and manufacturer when we are going through the final design to provide an extra assurance. Stevens stated, the $300,000 to $500,000 that I mentioned, represents 10% to 15% roughly, of this project cost and that is the contingency there, and that is pretty substantial. Chaikovska said, so if you do have a contingent fund raised from the sale of the lots, and you don't use it up, does this money go back to these people? Barwick stated the City already owns a few units, so we will be selling those units to existing employees, turning around and using that money to help with this project. Chaikovska asked if this was consistent with no public monies being used? Barwick stated tax dollars are being used. Tom Stevens stated, there may be a way to solve all this, and that is the typical contingency is considered a construction line item; it is by the bank and it is by the developers. If the unit costs $150,000 to construct, sticks and bricks, utilities, and everything else, then it sells for $165,000, because you add to it the line item of construction, 10%. Since the unit is contracted with a specific buyer, if the unit comes in at $150,000 and pot a dime was 28 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 9. 1995 spent on contingency, that money can then be rebated, at the time of closing, back to the purchaser. Chaikovska asked, you don't have a specific plan for this project, as to how this would work? Stevens stated, not yet, not at a conceptual level, we don't. I am in the process of closing tomorrow on our finance scenario that is almost precisely what we are talking about. Barwick added, things are due in this Friday, so we will be working out those kinds of details with whichever bank is selected for financing this project. Johnson stated, that would be a great condition to add to the category for GMQS Exemption for the housing, that the final provide details on the financing and contingency aspects of the purchase. Garton stated she wanted to bring up one more thing on the category 4. She said she saw a problem, in that, if you sold it to a category 2 income person, and when that person left the City he could sell it for a category 4 price. Barwick stated, no, that was not correct. Their sale prices will be restricted in the same fashion that the current guidelines sell for. Mooney said he felt we were trying to do two things at once; if the City owns the property, and if the City has the employees, and needs to build employee housing, why isn't the City, basically, building employee housing, and then, in another way, attaching it to an employment contract for these employees. Instead of going through the hoops of trying to categorize through our housing authority, and then bring the housing authority into all this. If someone demands that they have to own their house in order to be employed by the City, then the City can write that; they own the property, they built it, they control it, and if it is not attached to their employment contract, why don't they rent it out to them, and maintain their own standards, on their own property, with their own project, and their own employee. Barwick stated the problem with that would be that we would then be bringing public funding into this project and using up some of the funds that are currently being used by the housing authority for construction of other units around town for this project. Mooney said, let's change the scenario and say that it is a real straight forward scenario, and basically, you have these units to apply to the people who need to work in the City. The City owns them, and let the City control their own property, their own project, and their own employees. Barwick stated that would work perfectly fine for him, but the original condition, when we talked to City Council about this, was that we would attempt to do this without City funds. If City Council wants to change that and use 29 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 9. 1995 City funds to construct these, then that is something else. Cris Caruso stated, Tim, what you are asking then, is why doesn't the City take out of its capital improvement funds to build the units, own the units, just like we do now; we own six units now, but we are considering selling them to the residents and building a capital replacement fund as part of our asset management plan. What it boiled down to, and Steve hit the nail of the head when he said we are going to do this without using any City funds. We never researched coming up with 2 or 3 million dollars somewhere to do this, we don't have that kind of money, and we have a lot of needs; paving, water distribution system, etc., and we did not feel it would be right to try and compete with those needs for City employee housing. What you said is what we are striving for. Kerr stated there was one sticking point for him and said, I understand that you have said there is no City funds, but there is City land, and how is that land being reimbursed or compensated for? It matters not to me whether it is in the form cash or land that the taxpayers, in affect, have bought; is there a way that the project is reimbursing the City for the value of that land? Barwick answered, no, donated to the City, this property. and if he recalls correctly, this land was so there is no City tax dollars entered in Kerr stated there is value, and value belongs to all of us in this room, and that is the one point that I have a concern with; the restriction to City employees, that it is land that is owned by all of us and it is now going to be restricted to use to only City employees. Phil Overeynder, of the Water Department, said, Bruce, I checked with John Worcester, City Attorney, about that, and it took him about three minutes to look it up and to demonstrate that the City has a right to use that land in this manner. It is for City employees, for a public purpose. Kerr stated he did not doubt that the legal right is there, the question is, the moral right, when housing is so valuable to everyone that lives in this valley. That is where I have a concern. (Public), of the Water Department, said that basically, what this site is used for currently is for a storage facility; a lot of material for the electric shop and the water department store there. Part of the application, that is in front of you, for the special area plan is to create a new storage area to replace this. In my view, the value of the land is the use it currently provides and what we are doing is moving that to another location. You could look at that cost of being part of the value of the land that 30 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 9. 1995 you are having to replace in order to establish the same use someplace else. That cost is in the range of about $90,000 without additional buildings, so in terms of its existing use, I'm not saying it is the market value of the land, but that is the value to the City as it sits today. Kerr stated the value greatly increases if we approve various kinds of zoning changes and housing, etc. Blaich asked what happens if you don't sell or rent them to City employees, do you have a fall-back position on this? Barwick stated yes, then we would go on to other public employees, and then eventually to anyone who would qualify under the housing authority's guidelines. Kerr stated, this is a public hearing, and I think Jasmine opened the public hearing. Robert Dillon, Castle Ridge resident, said he would like to suggest a second possible way of valuing it, the way everything else is valued in our country; it is with potential use of it. Kerr stated, we have been dealing with some of the threshold kinds of issues on this, but we have yet to get into some more of the technical issues that we talked about at our previous meeting, like the road, the grade, and curve. He asked Johnson how she wanted to deal with some of those things. Johnson answered she felt it would bore us all to tears to go through the memorandum and hit each review criteria, maybe just by going through the list of conditions that we are seeking to have addressed for final the issues would rise to the top that staff had discussed within the memorandum itself. Steve Barwick said, we reviewed the conditions and we can, or have already complied with all of them, with the exception of just two. Kerr asked, which two were those? Stevens said, one, condition #20, says the Housing Board does not have the jurisdiction to waive the minimum residency requirements for the RO units. He said, as drafted right now there is a three year minimum residency requirement on RO units, and that does not suit the City's recruitment goal on these, so we are going to need to ask the Council to waive the minimum residency requirement on the RO units. The second condition is Condition #26, which states the trail shall be concrete, preferably eight feet wide. In meeting with the Parks Department, they felt that a road base or asphalt, and as little as six feet wide, might suffice. The narrower that trial gets, the least vegetation we are going to take out. Johnson stated, it seems when we made our site visit, Rebecca was saying, in order to accommodate bike and walking traffic, up and down, especially when you have some curves like that, that you 31 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 9. 1995 don't want to have people glancing off of each other, and that's where that eight feet came from. The concrete was for maintenance purposes because this had to be plowed in the winter. cris Caruso said it was his impression, it was between 6 ft. and 8 ft., and they preferred that it would be 8 ft. but it depended on the cuts. When we do come back for final, we need to show that specifically on the drawings. I had intended to, at the substantial turns, to widen that out. I know that is a concern, but he said, he did not recall talking about concrete. Kerr said, what if you changed the condition to say that the trail shall comply with the requirements made by the Parks Department. Caruso said, that would be great, perfect. Garton asked, what have you done with subdivision condition #1, and have you met the requirements? The project engineer answered, the condition refers to identifying, in specific terms, the variations of the final design for the road, it does not say that we need to bring it into compliance. Caruso stated he had talked with Chuck Roth and said, this has to do with the actual curve, the radius of the curve, as stated in the condition and does not meet Section 7- 1004. He said they talked about that and one solution is, without taking out half of the bank or cutting in and making a big mess there, to look at making a corner there. It would serve two purposes; one, if it is usable (we haven't checked out the grades), and if it is feasible it will serve to slow down traffic in the area. Second, it would make it safer for traffic movements through there, you wouldn't have a tight curve there where people could slide out during icy conditions. We need to check if the grades will work for that so that they can come to a safe stop or slow down before they make that turn. Michael McKue, representing the Castle Ridge Fence Association, had comments regarding the "big picture" here. He said, we held a meeting, most of the residents of Castle Ridge were represented by building representati ves, and we feel we got fairly good concensus from that meeting in the terms of the way people felt. We, number one, strongly recommend that the location of the four- plex be changed; that is the greatest concern to the residents there. The location is definitely not going to work for a number of reasons. Density and parking are two, and we feel noise, light, and view obstruction are concerns, not to mention the view obstruction of the curve that you are talking about right now. He said, it invites, on a number of levels, an absolute nightmare to put any kind of structure there. Secondly, with that in mind, we would prefer that the open space that presently exists, be maintained, and be permanently designated a park space, so that it would be a public park. 32 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 9. 1995 McKue stated also of concern was Condition #3. He said 20 mph is too high for that area. Condition #11, he felt visibility around that curve is a very serious issue; Conditions, 14, 22, 23, and 28 were also of concern. He said major concerns were traffic, maintenance of the roads, and affordable housing not being available for the general public, and how can they be sure that these units are going to people who are emergency workers. Ken (Public) asked regarding who would pay for conditions listed in Conditions 31 and 32 of the memorandum. Caruso answered, the project will pay for that. Ken asked how many category 4's, were there? Caruso answered, there are currently seven; a total of 16 units. Janver Derrington brought up the "niceness of feel" and that he lived in a "ten-plex" and, therefore, knew a little about density living there, and there is one last space of open space left and he did not want a playground or four-plex there. John Walla, representing the Board at Twin Ridge, spoke of the concerns regarding the open space, the number of emergency workers to be housed in the units, and the Doolittle Road curve and grade issues. Kerr closed the public hearing. Johnson asked to clarify the chlorine storage. She said, the only referral comments that Environmental Health would provide us, was that they had to comply with the OSHA requirements. I think that's a very technical bottom line, but I think the applicant should be fully addressing, not only first response to any incident, but also, an evacuation plan, which goes beyond who responds first, but down the line. Kerr said the problem with that is that they are making other agencies involved other than OSHA. That is the kind of thing that needs to resolved; the danger is to everybody that lives in the area. Caruso added, that in Condition #37, the project shall comply with OSHA standards for storage and handling of chlorine. He said, the project isn't dealing with storage and handling of chlorine. Johnson said that was what she was saying; in this condition of approval, or at least the first line of it, comes right out of the Environmental Health referral. I have added an evacuation plan must be approved by City Council and appropriate City departments prior to the issurance of any grading, excavation, utility, demolition, or building permits. 33 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 9. 1995 Phil Overeynder, Water Plant Director, said the chlorine response plan and the emergency response plan under OSHA, are basically, one and the same. If you meet the requirements for handling storage chlorine, part of that is to have emergency response. It may not specifically apply to this proj ect, but it does apply to the activities of the Water Plant. Kerr stated, that is the kind of thing you guys ought to have worked out, and, pardon me, I don't mean to be critical of you, but that kind of thing needs to be very clear and it shouldn't have to come up to the public hearing, and it be debated back and forth, and questioned back and forth. If it is as simple as your explanation, then it ought to be simplified and reduced to conditions that are that simple. Chaikovska stated, conceptually, I am not comfortable with this project, I am not comfortable with the density, it is too high, the location of the four-plex is an issue for me; this Commission has always been very concerned of 8040 issues and I am not comfortable with giving an 8040 exemption. The road problems are, of course, a big issue; I am just not comfortable with this project. I would say the same, whether it was a private or public project, and I think there are still some issues that need to be resolved. Garton stated she was in agreement with Kim Johnson. She said, I was very disappointed when we got these conditions tonight, that there was nothing addressing traffic mitigation, which was the main issue with me from the beginning. I think if you state the van pool's going to be of service, that should be in the conditions, for servicing the workers to the City, and I too think it should kick in to the Maroon Creek Junction with Highway 82 because the County is looking so hard at this, and it is a real slap at the County if you are not requiring it of a City project. She said, the four-plexes are a real issue for me; I would rather see less RO units, and a four-plex moved up with some of the ROs. I know the City property, the Thomas Property, and think that it should stay open space because that road is a real hazard; open space, not only for the benefit of the neighbors as we did at Williams Ranch, but I think it is a real safety issue to keep that clear of building. I would like to see the plan redesigned. Mooney stated, conceptually, I made comments last week that I think I should just reiterate. It appears to me that the concept of this has not even been thought out. The intentions are good to offer City employees an opportunity for upvalley living, but we don't know who these employees are, we don't know how many of them there are, we don't know what they earn or whether or not they can qualify; we are told that, basically, the Housing Authority guidelines are going to be changed and amended at Council, so that whoever wants to live there can, basically. I don't get the 34 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 9. 1995 concept of the whole thing, and I don't think it is thought out at all. The financing plan is a "pie in the sky"; I know it can work, but I don't see how it is going to work here and it cannot be eXplained to us in detail either. As for the design, I would like to see a couple of variations of designing, but again, we don't know who is going to live here, how much they can payor what the need of the project is. We have one site plan, and no options, no ideas, no thought process, we haven't been told some plans tried to work and they were eliminated or we tried to put the four-plex up here, we are using five acres out of the seven acres, etc. We are told that the road's going to work, but we don't know whether or not you are going to put a turn in the road, or a radius. It is not thought out at all, and conceptually, there is no concept. I don't get it, I don't get this whole project at all, and I wish I could read between the lines and find out what you "guys" are trying to accomplish here, because you haven't been able to tell me. I'm here to facilitate projects like this, I'm here to work with what the City's needs are and what the community's needs are, and if you can't satisfy me, and you go to the general public and you go to the newspapers with a project like this, they are going to kill you. Barwick asked Mooney, should we provide you with information that says we have X number of employees that are interested in this, can afford this, and are ready and willing to "pull the trigger" on this? Mooney stated, wouldn't you like to know that? I would like to see a couple of variations of this plan; I would like to see a couple of different designs of how we can use the land better, instead of bringing us just one site plan and very little detail. I can't even move forward with this at all. Hunt said he saw a conceptual plan, here, and I don't think the City has been operating in a vacuum and is saying, we have a piece of property, neat, let's do something with it. No, I see some conceptual work going on. I'm making, in my mind, that the City has problems accommodating emergency personnel and things like that. I'm sure the details will be coming up later. I do think the duplex is problematic and what do you do with it, I don't know? Maybe there is space for it up above, keeping the same numbers (I don't see it), but hopefully, we can work that out. Maybe it would have to go in place of one of the other single-family dwelling units or one of the duplexes, or something like that. I hope this isn't the case, as I would like to accommodate as many people as possible, but the point is, the four-plex, where you have it on this conceptual plan, I think, doesn't work well. I don't know if even a single dwelling would work in that location. I have doubts about it. The other points, I think, were expressed very well by Marta and Sara. I would like to know that that road is going to 35 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 9. 1995 work by the time it gets to us in final. I will leave it at that. Blaich said, on the plan there is an existing utility or storage building, is that remaining on site? Overeynder answered, yes. Blaich asked, is it necessary for that to remain on site, or could that be a location for the four-plex? Overeynder stated that only thing that would have to be at that location, as he would see it, would be the staging area for chlorine response. It is possible to relocate that facility up to the Plant, and use existing buildings to facilitate that. Blaich stated, so, it is possible to consider that as part of the development for housing. Blaich said, I have heard enough questions tonight that aren't answered and I think it has to go back to the drawing board, I can't support the plan without the answers. Kerr stated, it is a "square peg in a round hole". There are a number of members of this Commission who are champions on affordable housing, and this is what Tim was trying to say; if you can't convince some of the ones who are champions on affordable housing, then there is something wrong. I think the bottom line is that it is a "square peg in a round hole". We must give this project at least equal level of scrutiny that a private developer would have, and perhaps a greater level of scrutiny to avoid any appearance of conflicts or whatever. Garton asked if the Commission could see it one more time conceptually. Johnson answered the Commission could ask to see the plan as long as they want or deny it, and the applicant would have to re-apply. Kerr said, I don't want to have the plan come back to this body, for additional public comment, until there are some substantial changes that have addressed the concerns that the Commissioners have stated and members of the public have stated. Whether we do that from a tabling format or some other, then I don't think anything is served by tabling this for one week and come back on the agenda and hear the same public comments again. We know what the concerns are, we have the same concerns, and until something substantial changes I don't think we're going anywhere. MOTION Blaich moved to table the plan until such a time that staff can work it out with all the questions, and take into consideration all the points that have been raised. Blaich moved to amend the motion to table until June 20th, 1995. Hunt seconded, vote commenced, vote was unanimous in favor, motion carried. Chairman Kerr adjourned the meeting at 9:00 p.m. 36 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 9. 1995 Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Carrillo, Deputy City Clerk 37