Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19811124 ~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM'J LF.HOECKELB.8.&L.CO. Special Meeting PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 24, '81 The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission held a Special Meeting on November 24, 1981 at 5:00pm in the City Council Chambers. Members present were Olof Hedstrom, AlBloomquist, Jasmine Tygre, Pat Falin, Welton Anderson, Perry Harvey Roger Hunt, and Lee Pardee. Approval of Minutes The secretary did not have the minutes prepared Commissioners Comments None New Business Discussion of F.A.R. Requirements in Residential Zones. Sunny Vann of the Planning Office warnted to make a few general comments. The Planning Office does not expect to resolve this topic this evening. The Planning Office feels they have come up with a workable concept for F.A.R. requirements. The other comment that Sunny mentions is that Council extended the RMF Moratorium. They extended it to 30 days. If P&Z approves a res- olution at a public hearing with a recommendation to Council, that resolution has in effect put a re- straint on building permits for a per-iod of one year, or until such time that Council may dispose of the issue. Sunny Continues with the problem of excessive bulk primarily concerned with excessive size, height, scale, mass of the building relating to the lot size. It deal s primarily with Single family and Duplex structures. This exists in some degree in all of the residential neighborhoods. It is prevelant in the RMF zone and the Shadow Mountain neighborhood. As a result of the f fact that is a result of our current Landuse regulation That is it is becoming increasingly advantageous for a developer to utilize existing area and bulk controls within our zone regulations to construct excessive or large single family duplex structures utilizing our outside of the GMP review process and competition. In other words development controls are area and bulk requirements that were generated within the RMF neigh- borhood to apply to multi-family construction. As a result of the neighborhood concern and interest in that particular neighborhood, Council adopted a mora- torium on construction in the RMF Zone District and dir ected staff to address the problem of excessive bulk, particularly in the form of Duplexes or Single Families that are currently constructed in the neighborhood. The moratorium was for three months, the P&Z will adopt a resolution that will have the effect of extend- ing the moratorium for a period of one year. Given the contraints the Planning office is faced with at this time they are confining their investiga- tion to residential construction. The Planning Office decided that it was a comprehensive problem and to to approach it responsibly they would have to look at area bulk control for Single Family and Duplexes and all of Residential zone districts within the City. Currently the City Code divided two constraints to bulk in R-6 thr R-30 zone districts. These are zone districts which allow only Single family or Duplex construction; these are a height restraint which is 25 feet and various set-back control, a side yard setback and front and rear yard setbacks. -.1Ii - ___'i.... lIllI'" 'N_'.... fl.~~'*""..,.,"" -2- Within the RMF zone district which is essentially a multi-family zone; three or more units, which is the zoning which is prevelent in the Shadow Mountain neighborhood, we have both a height control which is twenty eight feet and set-backs as well as what is general 1) referred to as an F.A.R. (floor area ratio) control. F.A.R.'s are also prevelent in the Commercial Lodge and Office Zone District. A simple definition of a Floor Area Ratio is the bulk of the building as a ratio to the lot area or the ratio of the building to a lot. The ratio of the F.A.R. in the RMF Zone is 1:1. It was established as a result of the City's adoption of the RBO Ordinance ,which would allow increases in density. In looking at the problem of bulk and area within the residential zone districts, the Planning Office feels that an F.A.R. requirement is the quickest and easiest way to control the mass of a building as it relates to a typical lot size. The Planning Office came up with a set of FAR's based on a random survey of very few structures located throughout the neighborhood; the sizes that came up with were dismissed both by P&Z and City Council as being too restrictive. At the time P&Z did not favor the concept of an FAR at all and felt a more approprate approach was to bring all reside-ntial construction in the city under some kind of historic designation or some district in which an architec tual reveiw procees was employed for all residential construction. Council suggested that the Planning office go back to the drawing board and come up witha more liberal set of FAR's. They encouraged P&Z to confine there approach to FAR or some type of ---~-volume metric appraoch. The Planning Office subsequently developed a series of volume metric controls which was average height, volume of the building. The bulk of the City is compositeof standard minor block of 3,000 square feet each, the total lot size is the same regardless of the zone district. A series of revised FAR were developed and were referred to P&Z an City Council. They still applied one FAR to each zone district and it was applied to any size lot within a given zone. The problem with this approach it provided for an inapproble treat ffient of substandard lots and because of the variety of lots in any given zone district it was also unfair. The Planning Office came up with a maximum for each for each lot range category. On a 0 to 5000square foot lot you could build and FAR of .5, from 5,000to 10,000squarefeet you have a .3. It was correct in assuming that the key problem was the lot size and not the zone districts. To get at the problem of not addressing sub-standard lots the Planning Office came up with a maximum for each lot range category. Sunny said that if you look at the table on a 0 to 5000 square foot lot you could build and FAR of .5 toa maximum of 1500 square feet. In other words there was an upset limit on each lot siz, classification. The upset figures are designed in order to eliminate overlap between the various lot size categories and they do not necessarily reflect th e appropriate maximum size for a structure in each category. At the maximum FAR or lot size within one range that structute would not be larger than if the minimum lot size in tht next higher category. This was the final recommendation which came out of P&Z and it went to Coun cil. In the interim between P&Z and Council, the final approach, or revision of this approach was devised and that was the one that was actually taken to Council for discussiol It essentially evolved a sliding scale. There were two versions of il and the second isthe one that actually went to Council, essentially what it said was on lots, for example, of 0 to 3000 square feet, you had approximately 76 square feet of building for each 100 square feet of lot size, in other words on a 3000 square foot lot you could build 2300 square feet. On lots from 3000 to 9000 square feet you ha, have 20 square feet for each additional 100 feet, over and above the 3000. So you have 6000 square feet, between 3000 and 9000, and you wind up with an allowable square footage range of 23 to 35. In other words; Sunny said that it was "fine-tuned" to the lot sizes that exist within the community. This eliminates the problem of discrimination between zone districts as well as it adequately addresses the issue of substandard lots. The good part of this systeD is that you could establish the base allowable square footage that YOt wanted based on how restrictive, and all the rest of the numbers woulc fall into place. You can use the concept, but you can make it as strict or as leniant as was politically acceptable or desireable. ~ -- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM'~ C. F. HOECK EL R. a. 8< l. C J. Special Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission November 24,'81 -:] - Sunny said that this proposal, along with some changes and various language sections of the Code on how to compute the FAR all lead to City Council and occured at about the same time as the new Council elections. There was some confusion surrounding this particular appraoch and in the transition periodit failed by one vote. The Planning Office at that time, after several years tried to come t up with something. The final recommendation from the Planning OfficE that went to Council was based from a survey of 30 some structures scattered throughout the various residential community and that the allowable square footage is and the amount of square footage allowec for each 100 feet was a function of those structures that were surve) ed. .The Planning Office has the detailed survey results, in any event it was tailored to come up with a curve that closely approimat ed those structures in the community of various size lots that were felt to be appropriate. So with RMF moritorium in place the Planning Office reviewed many of the proposals and in the opinion the Planning Office concept had considerable validity. From a conceptual point of view, the Plannning Office concept appear s to be the most effective and equitable as well as being the most easy to administer and to utilize. This concept addressed itself to only R_6 and R-30. This would apply to single family and multi- family construction, that is Duplex construction in any resident or zone district in the City. Regardless of the zone district the lot size on which the applicant wishes to build a single family or Du- Plex would dictate the maximum size of the structure that we could build. The proposed requirements established an allowable building square footage range based on lot size. They are not specific FAR's per se., but they accomplish the same results by limiting the building square footage. The current recommendation are based on th point of departure, the survey data that was compiled based on exist iug construction in the community. There are a number of reasons why the Planning Office feels that the sliding-scale approach is particularly suited for getting at the problem. 1) Assume that the allowable square footage for single family and duplex structures should be a function of the actual lot size regardless of residenti, zone district, because what you are perceiving in a neighborhood is the mass of a building, it has nothing to do with whether it is R-6 or R-15 etc. How much mass do you allow on Xsquare feet of lot size. 2) A straight ratio for each district is essentially inapproable, in other words you are trying to force the variety of lot sizes and zone districts into this community into a straight FAR ratio, this does not address the problems of substandard lots and that it increases the ability to accumulate lot sizes. 3) It does provide a mechanism by which a subjective decision of the maximum allowable size of the single family or the Duplex is a baseline point outside of concept, meaning it could be changed over time. The concept could be administered regardless of how restrictive or how liberal you wish to be. Since it is based or 100 square feet of lot size criteria it provides flexibility in addressing the many lot sizes we have in this community. The basic concept is that for every 100 square feet of lot area you have you can build X amount of square foot additional building and it varies based on lot size. Some major flaws are that the upset limits are purely mathematic, al , in order to come out with a system with say two or three FAR's that work, we'll have to develope a series of upset limits from a mathmatical approach and not from an approach of what is an appro- priate size of a structure on the lot. In summary, the Planning Office feels that the proposed method or the concept of the proposed method is superior in that it deals, F' with problems such as substandard lots, it works irrespective zone location and therefore does not penalize an applicant because of application or because of where he owns property. It appropriat- ly addresses bulk as it relates to lot size and not zone district, recognizing that because of the nature of our City the City is not zoned up into 6,000 square foot parcels in the R-6 zone and in the R-15 as well. Also this concept is easy to explain and adminis- ter. Sunny Vann submits tables to the Commission that were based on surveys on a considerable amount of structures inlocated throughout the residential community. Sunny Vann said that the basic issues that were raised with respect toth e RMF district were height, (the Planning Office is recommending that single families and duplexes in RMF zone districts not be allowed to take advantage of area and bulk requirements that are proposed for multi-family construction, they are recommend ing that a uniform series of FAR's forsingle families and duplexes be developed which are explicable for all zone districts which allow residential construction which are a function of lot size for which some flexibility exists in how stringent or how liberal you' make those exist, and they recommend that an open space requirement, if those FAR's are made stringent, is not essential in R-6 through R-30 but should be imposed in the RMF zone. Those arethe basic changes. Olof Hedstrom mentioned that the Planning Office is going to come up with figures on how this will apply in respect to surveys in the past of various zones. Sunny said that current numbers that are in the table on page two are based on previous surveys which exclude all those structures that were considered objectional at that time. Olof said that Sunny's proposal breaks down into several parts; 1) The concept 2) Actual numbers , how restrictive the board want to be if they approve the concept. 3) Pheripheral matters, the height, the open space, definition of floor area(in respect to questions about balconies, terraces, subgrades area .) Let the Board limit their discussion to those three areas. Welton Anderson reads a memo that he wrote on May 8, 1981 re; Floor Area Ratios. Sunny Vann respond to the memo from Welton. Olof suggests that the Board hear from the Public. Lnuis Popish, 822 E. Hyman, said that the contrac tural agreeNents went on before the moratorium went on which imposes monetary hardshi against him, trying to come up to those committments and this contractural agreement was made due to the appraised value of the property at that time . Tom Elwork represents Mr. Popish, he said that you are dealing with the West End, The Shadow Mountain area and the East End. He he said that it is hard for him to visualize putting all those areas in the same category. Marge Riley commends Sunny Vann and thanks the Board members for making the public feel welcome at the meetings. Carolyn Dodie represents a group of citizens that are concerned about the Shadow Mountain Neighborhood, the density is too high the buildings are being built too tall. They would like to see some architectural planning, they feel there is a need for much more open space. They feel the RBO has been misused and that Ordinance 16 has not been enforced and that parking and traffic problems are very serious. Mary Melard discusses size and scale of buildings being built. B ill Martin, 710 N. 3rd St. , The West End is afraid of how people can take advantage of the RMF. He feels they need a FAR syst. em. Heather Cambell lives at Cooper and Garmisch, she thinks the new building in that neighborhood is totally out of proportion and will destroy the character of the town. Carol Bloomquist has an investment that she has to look out for; she is very much in favor of the FAR 1:1 ratio. Irma, said that her basic worry is that she is seeing the quality of life in Aspen going down, due to P&Z and what people can do. Olof said that the P&Z tried to do something about this five years ago. Janet:..:Hfillinas for the West Side improvement. _.,.._ _'.~lll_'~_~__ ~'>>..... .,.~, w. ---..,..-..,.., ,',_._.~-,-, RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves ~O~M 10 C. F. HOECICEl B. B. 8< L. co. -5- Norma Dall said that P&Z is doing a great job. he questions the bulk of the buildings being constructed. Olof Hedstrom said that the public comments are so much to the point and very significant and so important to Aspen and Olof thanks them for their comments. Too big is too much and the fact that Aspen has become a magnet for the developer that wants to come in au has no concern for life in Aspen simply to build to the maximum in size for maximum profit; this takes aways from the great life here in Aspen. PerryHarvey comments to Sunny that he assumes that all the way through they are speaking of external FAR. Sunny said that there are some problems the Planning Office has with current definitions, this would be accompanied to Council and P&Z with specific language ammendments to clarify the application. Perry said that his conceptual concern is that if they are react ing to what is supposedly oversized structures on given parts of the plan, he agrees with Sunny that it will force these 7.ones to conform to the intent of the zone- What we will end up doing is trading a few feet of bulk for a ~O% increase in people. Jasmine said that she thinks part of the problem is th ese large structures are constructed then everyone reacts after it is built. The size and blockage of sunlight is a big problem. Density is something that has to come out in the competition. Sunny said that density is a function of landuse provisions The bulk of the buildings that is constructed in those area are what we are really talking about here. Lee Pardee said that he likes Sunny's approach alot, a sliding scale is effective. On the other side of the issue is that of "open space" we do have height limitations, we have set-back limitations and the Boards concern on alot of these things considering volume is really how much open space. Sunny said that they could get the same results with their propo sal than to try to come up with slide scale open space requirements Lee Pardee said that he really disagrees with Sunny. Sunny said that this set of al.owable FAR's will give you the open space requirements that you want. Roger Hunt agrees with Sunny in addressing the open space but to look at the difference in figures where th ere is allowable squar footage. Welton Anderson asked to be excused from meeting Perry Harvey asked to be excused from meeting. Al Bloomquist endorses the concept of dealing with single family and duplexes however for the RMF is a forcing of the market palce to return to multifamily. Olof suggests moving into the next section; the height, setback, etc. Al Bloomquist feels that the charm of the neighborhoods is the mixture of different structures.. Al said he is in favor of 28' lim with 5 foot. Gideon Kaufman there is one conceptual question; If you are look ing at open space, then you will have to change the way the code is drafted. For example, I could have a project the is 50% open space because the whole backe yard is used for open space and only 25% count. The way the building department counts now is contiguous to the street. Olof Hedstrom feels that the concept is excellent. Roger Hunt said that there is one more question the board should look at iswhen does a duplex no longer become a duplex. Sunny said that two kitchens is a duplex, any thing other in an RMF is subject to special approval. Sunny said that what he would like to do is bring something to the P&Z on Dec. 8,1981 in resolution form. Olof said the resolution is not needed but more information is needed from the Planning Office in a more specific form. ~"_,,,,~,,.. -1-'...-- -6- PUBLIC HEARING Proposed Code Amendemnt to Definition of Subdivision to include Lodges. Alan Richman siad that this is a continued Public hearing from last meeting. Alan outlines the points; The Planning Office is suggesting that the possible land for Lodge or Motel purposes be considered a subdivision, because it would provide the planning office with a means to review beyond the conceptual level of review that you get at the GMP scoring phase. d 1 If you look at a large eve opement you are dealing with so many issues. Roger Hunt does not like the idea of calling it a subdi vision. Olof agrees with Rogers point of view. Al Bloomquist agrees with Roger. Sunny stated that the provision is rather than forcing an applicant PUD is subdivision but gives some flexibility over the outcome. The subdivision provides the consumer protection devices and the process that can be shortened to review and deal with things like Plate requirements utilities, etc. If under the bulk requirement an applicant feels he needs the additional flexibility to fortify PUD, he may do so as a matter of choice and the Planning Offic e usually recommends it. The Subdivision regulations that set all the standards for utilities. PUD is only to provide addditonal flexibility in the review. Sunny said the definition of a Subdivision says "lease hold interest, short term lease" Roger said the problem he is concerned with is that if you put a lodge in a subdivision category the next thing that will happen is that the process for condominiuIT izing is too easy because they are already subdivided. Jasmine feels that one of the problems is that a lease hold interest is one thingbut a person who rents a room is not a lease hold interest. The difference is that the interest of the ... Sunny said that an apartment or lodge unit the impact i is the same - they both have impact as a result as the nat ure of the development and that is what you are gettting at. Jasmine said I am not sure you can legally do this. Sunny said that you can legally do it...trust us. Al Bloomquist said he does not think that if one owner is involved that it should be any kind of a subdi- vision process. Roger said I don't mind the process but I don't want to call it a subdivision. Sunny said we need the mechanism to review, the reason they are defined as subdivisions is because the State Statutes have been expanded to define it as sub- divisions. It gets away from old implication of ownership and addresses the concept of impact as to what is going on Olof said that what bothers him is that definintions ar being twisted to do something that ... I just can'taccept that a lodge is a subdivision. Roger said the way I would like to see this that Lodges shall go under a lodge development cess which for administrative purposes will be to a subdivision process. Al Bloomquist said does that apply currently to all commercial buildings of all type. Sunny said commercial is not subject to subdivision. Olof asked Roger to make a motion. Roger moves to recommend to Council to go ahead on a Code amendment which would require Lodges to go through Lodge Development Review process, administratively as identical to the Subdivision process. Lee Pardee seconds the motion. All in favor: Olof Hedstrom Roger Hunt Jasmine Tygre stated is review pro- identical Aye Aye Aye Pat Falin Lee Pardee Aye Aye Al Bloomquist Naye '-' RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 10 C.F.HOECKELB.B.!I<L.Co. 7- Proposed Code Amendment - Commercial GMP Small Projects Exceptions . Olof Hedstrom entertains a motion to approve Resolutior #81-17 as written. Roger Hunt so moves Lee Pardee seconds. All in favor: Olof Hedstrom Al Bloomquist Jasmine Tygre Pat Falin Roger Hunt Lee Pardee Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye Motion to adjourn. All in favor. ''''~"'"",''-~''''''--'-''-"-'