Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19840404 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Continued Regular Meeting April 4. 1984 Planning and Zoning Commission Chairman Perry Harvey called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m, with commissioners Welton Anderson, Lee Pardee and David White present. STEVEMSOM/AGATE CONCEPTUAL PUD Colette Penne, planning office, made corrections to the application. The applicant came in December with six duplexes. The units were over FAR and height requirements. That plan was denied. The applicant scaled the project down to six single family houses and two duplexes. There is no plan now to condominiumize . Eleven bedrooms of employee housing units were verified at the Agate. The applicant approached the housing authority with a preliminary application to replace the employee units but not on site. Now that the units are not to be condominiumized , the question of eliminating employee housing does not now come under the commission's review. Delete the section of the application which is asking for condominiumization and is going to provide employee housing. The plan is to phase construction so that the duplexes are built down the road. The applicant will lose rent presently generated from the Agate all at once. After eighteen months the dup`_- es will be constructed and condominiumized. During that period there will be no employee housing. Pardee noted that is a tragic flaw in the condominiumization procedures. Penne continued. The zone is R6 PUD. The proposal is six single family houses and two duplexes. The applicant is exempt from GMP because of the verification of the units at the Agate. The applicant has chosen to use the underlying zoning in planning the development. The duplexes will be on three townsite lots. The single family houses will be on two townsite lots. There is a mandatory PUD on the property . The question is why is it not being utilized for a more innovative design. The objective of the PUD is to create a more desirable environment than could be created with a R6 zoning. The applicant has chosen not to use the PUD. That may not be bad. The project will look like a residential development. It will fit in with the west end residential neighborhood. She prefers eliminating the curb cuts and interior block access. The plan reduces the existing curb cuts on the block now. The plan improves the situation, although, it is not as innovative as it could be . The plan is much better than the Agate. The plan presents a better entrance into town. However, a better design solution could be arrived at. 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Continued Regular Meeting ARril 4, 1984 Planning and Zoning Commission One variance requested is in height. The proposed houses are within the allowable floor area ratio. The only justification for granting the variance is the mandatory PUD. The second variance is the encroachment of the swimming pools. Pardee asked what is the width of an alley by definition. Penne replied 20 feet. Pardee said 20 feet with 15 foot setbacks on either side totals 50 feet. There is 50 feet of unusable space under the R6 zone. Under the PUD the commission could authorize at conceptual to use that space. The sensitive area is the frontage on 7th Street between Hallam and Bleeker Streets. It is zoned PUD to take advantage of that area. The applicant can use that space as an amenity even though the applicant does not own that portion of the land. Penne said Pardee' s idea of integrating a green open space in the design is good. The problem is clustering the units would yield common walls. Condominiumization would have to occur. Pardee said that could be a problem but not necessarily. The PUD allows clustering for use of the open space. The applicant can circumvent condominiumization and employee housing. He is inclined not to grant any variances if the applicant is not going to utilize the PUD. PUD indicates the area is sensitive. The design has to be done for the city. The code allows then concessions for the applicant. Treat the parcel as sensitive. Encourage the applicant to cluster his design closer together. In return, the commission will grant variances for height, encroachments for pools, etc. Penne said the problem in developing typical duplex and single family lots is that sameness in the design will have more of an impact. The west end is varied with large Victorians juxtaposed with small Victorian miners houses. The bulk is broken up. This project is not varied and not broken up. She reported that John Seigle, attorney for the applicant, said the architect does not intend to make each house look the same. It would be advantageous for a subdivision of duplexes and single family houses to have a different architect design each house to discourage a cookie cutter subdivision as the first impression of Aspen. Penne said Jim Holland, parks department, reviewed each tree on the parcel . He explained a couple of the trees are perfect specimens. She indicates on a map the specific trees, trees " E" and "F" . He reported tree "E" is a perfect specimen of a spruce with its 20 foot diameter. Holland said that tree is a classic. Structures should be designed around the tree to 2 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Continued Regular Meeting April 4, 1984 Planning and Zoning Commission preserve it . In relocating the tree, its chance of survival is minimal. Penne said in a PUD there is a chance the structure can be designed around the trees. The applicant intends to introduce ample new landscaping. But Holland indicates there are four trees of major significance. Harvey said the commission's concern is the block at 7th, the trees are located there . Pardee cited a case, Wedum' s office building. Wedum was required to move the tree; the tree survived. Use the flexibility of the PUD to deal with the trees. Penne addressed the curb cuts. The curb cuts are allowed by code. She encouraged the applicant to use the alley, although the applicant strongly does not want to. The applicant will provide 44 parking spaces. There are twenty-six bedrooms in the houses. There are ten media rooms. The applicant has provided more than the required parking. The transportation department suggested a bus stop at the corner at Bleeker and 7th. Penne encouraged varying the architecture of the structures. The plan does adhere to the requirements of the underlying zone except for height and possible encroachment of the pools. She encouraged using the PUD to develop a more interesting site design . She suggested the commission recommend approval to Council for conceptual subdivision and PUD. Delete the condomi- niumization request. She also recommended the eleven conditions outlined on page five in the Agate memo from planning office dated April 3 , 1984 . Seigle said the present concept is based on the previous feedback. The architects decided if the buildings were clustered , the project would look too dense for the west end. The intent is to break up the density of 28,000 square feet by designing separate structures. The PUD is being utilized. Staggering the houses breaks up the density visually. The entrance from Highway 82 onto 7th is a concern. Whatever the solution, the structures will be 30 or 40 feet from 7th Street. The distance of the structures from the road is not great. And distancing will not mitigate the impact of the structures. The landscaping is the solution to the impact. The applicant is committed to significant landscaping. The alley will be paved in brick and landscaped. That will also help mitigate the visual impact. Utilities will be located underground. It is critical to his client ' s concept that the houses be oriented south facing. The client does not want residents to be viewing parked cars, dumpsters, and gravel . Emergency vehicles will still be able to access 3 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Continued Regular Meeting April 4g 1984 Planning and Zoning Co ission the alley way. The alley is not vacated, and is not the applicant's intention for the city to vacate the alley. Under a landscaping permit, the alley can be paved in brick as long as access to the utilities is maintained. His applicant would plow the alley. Penne said Hammond accepted the current proposal. Harvey asked about the parking provisions. Seigle replied there is atwo car garage for each unit. The remaining parking is in the driveways. There is otherwise no designated parking . Harvey calculated 20 spaces for ten units. 44 spaces are proposed. Then there are 22 spaces in the driveways, that is not a good solution . Alleys are used for three functions : utilities , parking, and trash. By excluding the use of the alley, parking will be pushed onto the streetscape along with the trash. Seigle said within garages there are built-in receptacles for trash to discourage placement of cans on the streets. Harvey noted that is an impractical solution for the trash, trash services may not access the garage. Seigle argued the reality of the project is that the quality of the resident of the project will not generate problems with parking, etc. Harvey disagreed. Penne argued that the applicant on the one hand does not want cars visible in the alleys, but cars in the driveways will be visible. Seigle said the Agate will be demolished this summer. The construc- tion of the block will be phased over three or four years . Duplexes will not be constructed for eighteen months. The land- scaping will be done this year. At preliminary elevations will be presented. Seigle addressed the height variance request. The mean average of the roof is 25 feet. The garages are half underground . To obtain a comfortable space in the unit with a parking space partly underground, the roof height needs to be extended another four feet.- The architect said the eave height of the -roof- is 26 '-6". The variance is for either one or two feet. Anderson explained the eave height is 27 feet, and the ridge height is 32 feet. The height variance is 7 feet for the eave , and 2 feet for the ridge. Seigle cannot respond to the discrepancy. Harvey did not hear a reason for the height variance. Seigle responded the height accommodates the underground parking and accommodates the possibility of varying roof lines. Pardee said the commission cannot allow the applicant to build on underground 4 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Continued Regular Meeting April 4. 1984 Planning and Zoning Commission utilities . Under the PUD however substantial setback allowances can be made. But the PUD has not been answered. He would make concessions for parking in the driveway, trash in the garage, removal of trees, setbacks for pools on the conditions that the structures presented are not uniform in design or in roof line. He wants to see a large open green area fronting 7th Street. He wants a park like feeling. He wants to make the turn into town exciting. But the city receives nothing with the present plan. Seigle said the developer would not have any problem with what Pardee is proposing as long as the developer can maintain the concept of four separate buildings. Pardee replied that if the parcel was zoned only R6 the commission could not prevent that. But the parcel is also zoned a PUD, and the commission can parti- cipate more in the design. Staggering the units is not creative. An exact feeling of compatibility is critical. The present design looks like a subdivision. Harvey said the architecture is too regimented and too homogenous, variety is necessary. Seigle said the footprint can be designed not to encroach on setbacks . Pardee argued the tree problem, the trash problem, the inadequate use of a PUD problem, etc. , still exist even if the applicant does not ask for much. Pardee recommended approval of conceptual be conditioned with detailed, specific items on what the commission wants. On conceptual the plan meets conceptual requirements, but the commission will need to provide explicit conditions. Penne said if the commission has a real problem with the layout, conceptual should not be approved until the commission sees a layout it likes. White concurred with Pardee. He disapproved of the design, it resembles a California housing project. PUD offers the opportunity for a more innovative design. Anderson concurred with Pardee and White. There is no reason to vary the height. Sufficient living space can be provided without height encroachment and with the underground parking. The rear yard setbacks on the alleys are fine. The pools can encroach, the structure is a landscaping feature. He is not sure what he is willing to concede to the applicant for benefits to the city. Penne said the density is determined by the amount of area, it is the full block. The units can be located on smaller than 5 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Continued Regular Meeting April 4, 1984 Planning and Zoning Commission normal lots, with smaller than normal setbacks. Each lot can be varied. Penne questioned the design solution of clustering the houses on smaller lots at one end of the property. The applicant intends to use the full FAR. Consequently, the solution will provide a real bulky lot. Seigle said the applicant will use the maximum FAR. Given that, breaking the units made more sense than traditional lot line application. Penne said she does not know which alternative is better. Landscaping may minimize the visual impact. Harvey said Pardee ' s point about a greenbelt fronting 7th Street is good. But, the environment there is urban. Pardee said the city may need 20 feet, but the applicant could reduce space between units and increase the height of the units. Penne argued the perception of bulk would be greater. Seigle assured the commission that architecturally the units will not all be the same. Given the FAR, moving the units 15 more feet away from the frontage on 7th Street may create an undesirable visual impact on the 6th Street end of the property. Harvey said the current proposal is an improvement over the existing structures. It is an urban area. He questioned whether the greenbelt corridor is worthwhile. Anderson said an intention of PUD is to cluster and to provide open space. Harvey said, however, there is no guideline why this is a PUD. It is a sensitive entrance to town. Penne said the problem is FAR. Any 54,000 square foot block in the west end does not even come close to the maximum FAR. Pardee said the commission cannot interfere with the FAR, but it can require the applicant to provide a greenbelt off 7th Street, to vary the architecture of the structures, to address height and setbacks. Penne reiterated again the issue is FAR. A clustering solution will increase the perception of the mass. A height variance increases that much more the perception of bulk . She suggested the applicant research how tall the surrounding buildings are, the Villas, Studio West , etc . The commission has to consider the effect on the rest of the neighborhood. Harvey said the building department determined that 6th and 7th Streets require 10 foot setbacks. Hallam and Bleeker Streets require 6-2/3 foot setbacks. He did not know there were different setbacks based on the street. Penne said the setbacks vary for a corner lot and a major arterial street. 7th is an arterial road way. 6 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Continued Regular Meeting April 4. 1984 Planning and Zoning Commission Harvey is concerned with trash and parking. No reason has been shown for an height variance. A row house effect needs to be discouraged. Staggering the units is not a solution. He favors a nice entrance to town. The tradeoffs may overload the other end of the lot. The alley design is nice. But the applicant is not dealing with activities which will be displaced by a nonusable alley, i. e, trash and cars. Seigle said if the applicant is not permitted to utilize the alley as he plans to, the applicant is not interested in the project. Driveways and garages are sites for trash and cars . There is an option on the property. The property is not marketable with an alley. If the commission finds the alley essential to the project then the discussion can end. Harvey said there are certain things alleys are used for and those things have to be dealt with. What is a media room? May be forty parking spaces are not needed. A two garage may be all that is necessary for the units. Twenty odd spaces are not really usable. Pardee suggested give the applicant some direction. He agrees with Harvey. But he will concede a few feet in height, parking, a back yard encroachment in return for the greenbelt on 7th Street. Housing facades also need to be varied. Anderson noted there is less than ten feet between structures. Seigle clarified the drawing may be misrepresenting the distance. The architect did not request a side yard setback. Seigle said the windows and the common rooms will be oriented south. Penne said it is important from the exterior to demarcate a front entrance facade. Anderson said the Villas are in a PUD. He does not know if a greenbelt is a condition of the PUD. A greenbelt buffers the units from the highway. The site of two of the proposed houses fronting 7th Street is not attractive. From a marketing point of view, whatever device is used to increase the setback from ten feet is desirable. White supports the greenbelt setback on the 7th Street. He also prefers more variation in the building envelope. Pardee suggested a condition that the applicant participate in a sidewalk improvement district. Anderson said the applicant already is representing a sidewalk around the entire block. 7 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Continued Regular Meeting April 4. 1984 Planning and Zoning Commission Penne supported Pardee' s idea of increasing setback and Anderson's reasons. The planning office would not support the combination of clustering, height variance, and maximum the FAR. The project would be too bulky. Pardee suggested a greenbelt of 25 feet. The side yard setbacks could be reduced by half to meet that greenbelt setback. Seigle argued that with the FAR the applicant needs , the development will be bulky at one end of the project. Harvey said the applicant has a 10 foot setback from 6th Street, there is some ability to shift the setback. Penne said under mandatory PUD the applicant is not assured the full density. If the commission does not like the design solution, it can reduce the maximum number of units. Harvey reviewed the conditions recommended by the planning office (listed in a memo dated April 3 , 1984 , page four) . One, two, and three require licenses from the engineering and fire department. Number four is the detailed reasons for the necessity of the height variance. No reason has been shown at conceptual. Number six, the bus stop request, the commission should not be concerned with. Number seven, the employee housing, is deleted. Number eight, statement of subdivision exception, is deleted. Harvey is trying to get the applicant to maintain the lot size to reduce the setbacks and maintain the conformity of the lots. Penne noted that the greenbelt will be common area, the only way to maintain the density and to maintain the common area is through condominiumization. Seigle said the applicant can deal with that through subdivision covenants. Pardee does not want the applicant to worry about lot size. Focus on a sensitive design. Seigle requested a denial, not a table. He wants definite action. Harvey replied there is not enough detailed information on the submission for the commission to give conceptual approval . He does not favor denial. Pardee asked if the commission denies the application, does the applicant reapply for conceptual if Council denies the application. Penne said yes. Pardee would favor a resolution supporting denial for the following reasons : insufficient data; insensitivity to the use of a PUD; insufficient reasoning for height and rear yard setback variances; insufficient solutions to parking and trash problems, etc. But he does not want this project forwarded to Council until he sees the resolution. Penne said the applicant has to be more willing to work with 8 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Continued Regular Meeting April 4, 1984 Planning and Zoning Commission the commission, there are reasons for conceptual subdivision and PUD when one is developing a whole block of the City of Aspen. The client ' s rigidity indicates that he may not be the best person to design the block. Anderson said the meeting this morning is a concession to the applicant by the commission. The applicant is naive to think that Council will be easier on conceptual level than the commission. Penne said the city does want to work with the developer, but the city is not going to work within the applicant's timetable. Pardee said the commission has demonstrated by scheduling this meeting this morning a willing- ness to work with a critical timetable. Harvey prefers not to approve or deny the application at this time. If the commission tables pending more information, if the applicant cannot live with that because of a contract, if the applicant then returns with no further information, then the commission will deny the application. Penne said once the concept is approved, there will be swift action taken at preliminary and final stages. The concept is the problem with this application. Lee Pardee moved to table the application to a date uncertain; seconded by David White. All in favor; motion carried. Harvey adjourned the meeting at 11:00 a.m. Barbara Norris, Deputy City Clerk 9