Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19840710 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Special Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission July 10, 1984 Chairman Perry Harvey opened the continued regular meeting at 5 : 00 p. m. with commissioners Jasmine Tygre., Pat Fallin, Welton Anderson, David ',!kite, Lee Pardee , Roger Hunt ., and alternate , Mary Peyton present. COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS �-7hite suggested uniforming the timesharing code : Shadow "Jountain offers a fourteen day maximum use and the Prospector a thirty day mayimuEii. Colette Penne , planning office , explained the problem is that the lodge condominiumizaIC-ion is limited to fourteen days. The units have to be condominiumized before they are time- shared. This does accommodate someone who buys multiple packages. Hunt suggested a per package number. Harvey replied the number is a week per package. Based on his marketing plan the developer should determine his Own program and ask that of the Commis- sion. Penne does not kno,a what the reason is to limit someone to two packages. On the otherh and, someone aho might buy many pack-ages -probably would buy a condominium. White said corporations might buy many packages. Uhit-e continued. IDlomquist at the Council meeting last night presented a Rio Grande River Flow Plan. Bloi-.iquist wants to finalize action by August 13th. TThite suggested the Corayfiission review the sketch plan for the Rio Grande. Blomquist ' s proposal to Council was to remove the concrete in the river and restructure it with a new trail . OLD BUSINESS HEMIETER 8040 GREENLINE SPECIAL REVIEW Harvey asked what is the confirmed s(- footage.juare footage. Penne said the square foot calculations were 6 , 800 square feet , that subtracted ti-le technically subgrade s-oace. The figure today is 7,545 square feet. The proposed addition would be 4 , 220 square feet . The grand total for the building is 11 , 765 s(Lfuare feet . That is within the FAR limit (13 , 475 square feet) counting the two zoning categories. The memo addresses the 8040 greenline criteria. There is not much of an impact. The elevator tower will rise an additional 1 (2 feet . The Durant Condominium Com,,?le:: , located on either side of the elevator tower , is not excited by the additional 18 feet. There will be a few places from town where the tower will be visible, for example the Tippler ' s parking lot. The tower will not be of such mass that it will be that more noticeable than the ton of the Durant Condominiums. Larry 'Y"aw . architect- for the applicant , oresents drawings . He points out a section along Galena Street of the proposed elevator tower . He took site lines from eye level at Durant. In both cases the dominant skyline profile is the Durant Condomi- nium . The tower simi_)ly will not be seen from downtown. H RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Special Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission July 10, 1984 demonstrated a point at which the tower would be seen, a point between the Durant Condominium buildings. Penne explained there are three zones on the property: 11-15/PUD, L-2 , and C-conservation. An employee unit is located within the house. There are two 1�itchens and that is why the building is considered a duplex. A duplex is an allowed use in the R- 15 . The majority of the house sits in the R-15 zone. The house which is a nonconforming use in the conservation zone does not e-,:'C-cnd into the (-'-conservation zone . The question is what is the FAR limitation on a house that sits on a 60 ,000 square foot lot . The house is a nonconforming use and cannot be expanded into the conservation zone , and yet the conservation zone is part of the land ownership. A compromise was to use the FAR and duplexing allowed in R-15 in L-2 areas and not use the conser- vation zone. This is conservative approach to determining FAR. The addition brings the building to 11 ,700 square feet, 2 ,500 square feet of possible expansion remains . If the conservation zone is included in the FAR using the R-15 FAR criteria the house would be allowed 10 , 700 square feet rather than the existing allowed 13 ,500 square feet. It is wise not to use the conservation zone; limit the house to 13 ,500 . Otherwise, it becomes a dominant structure surpassing the Wheeler Opera pera House . The Commission should limit the size. That is why she included this condition along with the construction conditions. Mick McGrath, attorney for the applicant, addressed the abstract issue of whether or not C-conservation is included in the computation of FAR. The issue does not matter with this application because the application is within the limits even with its exclusion . Fie understood that Penne wants the Commission to make a ruling so she has some guidance for the future. If the applicant wants to do any future expansion the applicant has come before the Commission. There is a need for the Commission to decide on an ad hoc basis whether to include C-conservation or not. Hemmeter wants to be treated like anvone else . The planning office will probably clarify the code at some point. However it is clarified, it will be applied equally to all , including Heimrileter. But that issue is not before the Commission. He disagrees with Penne to mandate an ultimate buildout forever. Public policies r..iav change . He is willing to accept the other conditions. Harvey asked if there are any changes in the application. Are there changes in the proposed height (he is referring to a comment in a letter submitted by the Durant Condominium complex) ? Yap-7 explained that the elevator tower does not impact the Durant , it does not change the sun or the view. Height is only a factor when one is standing between the Durant buildings. The faces between the buildings are access walkways from the fourth floor to ground level ; they are egress ways . The windows on these facades are small . The critical views are on the other faces of the building. The views are im-oactecl minimally. The design cleans up the jungle effect of the area. 2 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Special Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission July 10, 1984 HcGrath added that the aesthetic concerns in the design benefit the ski trail. Hemmeter gave an easement to the Durant homeowners so that they could extend their walkways- and use the trail . The proposed design for the access by Yaw, which is only possible with the new elevator , cleans up the area. The trail area becomes nicer. The existing walkway is comprised of three or four levels and is not safe . The -proposed design is saf=er. Yaw described the existing walkway and its replacement. A snowmelting bridge is included in th..� design. Code standards are met. Hunt aslred Yat%7 to locate the trail on the cross section. He asked where the water will be jumped off the bridge . Yaw exi'Dlained where the drainage would be , it would not be durq-oed on the trail . Harvey rears into the record --i letter addressed to Larry YaW f roi-.i Lee L. 11iller, representing the Durant Condominiu-m Association, dated July 3 , 1934 . "At your reuuest ., we forwarded your proposed plans and letters to the Durant Board of Managers who have, in return, p. rovided us with their thoughts, which are sumi-.iarized below. 1 . There is a unanillous concern that construction wor'r,,ers, material , and noise would be a nuisance to owners and guests of the Durant . Parking problems in the prior construction period were numerous . Ile ask that reasonable precautions be taken to mitigate these impacts. 2. T-71-1ile the elevator shaft is owned by the Durant Condo- miniums, there has only been an easement granted to the residence for the elevator . Tie would like to ensure that Durant owners could use the elevator provided they share in covering operating eNpenses. 3 . There is significant concern over the ;proposed now height of the elevator tower as it relates to the aesthetics and proportions relative to the rest of the Durant Buildings. The Board does not wish to Dave the tower any higher than it now is , but has no problem with the proposed 3 , 900 foo-IL-- addition or even covering of the walkway. 4 . There is concern about possible future parking problems if additional Dar;',-,ing spaces are necessary for the home addition. It is our understanding that there are now two narking spaces allocated for the residence. Ii= you would like further discussion, you may contact Dick Moore, President of the Durant Condominium Association, in Denver at (303) 779-1703 . " Harvey asked about items one and two. 11cGrath responded those 3 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Special Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission July 10. 1984 items are in error. The elevator is owned entirely by Hemmeter. The easement grantee) last year says it is for Hemmeter' s e_,clusive use. The manager who they dealt was aware of this . Miller is simply unfamiliar with the easement agreement. Harvey asked about item three. Yaw clarified the addition does not increase bedrooms or guest capacity to the residence . The parking would be his client ' s concern not the Durant ' s concern. A Durant owner might have a party that required Hemmeter ' s parking space . The situation there has worked over the last eight or nine years. Yaw does not understand this as a special concern. There is adequate parking in the parking lot and on the street. I1cGrath commented that his client has an agreement with the Durant that goes back some _years . This consideration was in e-,-change for something Hemmeter die? for the Durant. It gives his client, at the Durant' s request, two unassigned _-places in the Durant parking lot . The Durant requested the spaces be unassigned so that the spaces could be available when Hemmeter was not in Aspen. Hemmeter agreed to that. r. act Durant in fact uses Hemmeter ' s parrying assignment. That item is not a major concern. Pardee asked what the present height of the tower is and what the proposed height of the tower is . What is the height of the Durant building? Yaw responded the e.,-isting elevator tower stands 43 feet above grade. The addition is 16 to 13 feet . He has discovered some elevator :machinery that may allow this figure to be reduced, but he is not sure of this and cannot make exact representations . The ?)ur ant- ' s maximum height is five feet lower than the present tower. Pardee asked the Commission to consider that the proposed tower will be 22 feet higher than the Durant, it is a height increase of 400 . This tower is not small . Durant is stated to be 30 feet, the difference between 33 feet and 61 feet is 23 feet. Harvey noted that the elevation drawings show that the proposed tower is 56 feet. Yaw presents photograplis. One is a shot between the buildings of the e isting state of affairs. The gap between the buildings is 20 feet wide. Ile recommended that the Commission take a site visit if there is doubt as to the visibility of the elevator . The intent is to make a safer and more direct access to the residence. (There is discussion about the height increase among the comimis- sioners . ) Anderson reads snot elevations. Yaw remarked the lower floor of the building and the bridge are towered as much as possible. ircGrath reminder; the Commission the residence is sited against the mountain. The point of the design is to achieve a safe access with a straight walkway and not with tiered stairs . The design does not have much leeway. The tower goes not impact the Durant. RA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Special Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission July 10, 1984 Harvev asked if there is any code regulating L- T 1 -4 the height o'- the residence . Penne re-)lied there is a height limitation. This unusual structure will not obliterate views. Bill Drueding , building depart.-Ilent '. clarified how height is measured, which is from right angles to the slope. Anderson supported the -project. The iDl- otos are deceptive; they are shot from a high angle. Neither did Tygre or Fallin have problems with the proposal. Hunt' s problem was that t=he- tower would stick up above the Fasching Haus anc' the new hotel. Since the tower will be visible to the neighborhood decorate it with a clock so it looks like something other than an elevator tower. Yaw shared the same concern. The ridcieline dominating the skyline however is the Durant, not the tower . McGrath suggested the applicant informally work with the planning office to make the tower as aesthetically pleasing as possible. !-!hite ' s concern is the visible im-pact on the hotel. Ninimize the visual impact . Yaw commented the new stain color which has been lightened to the color of winter oak has reduced the im,Dact of the visual mass . Penne commented that the mass of- the surrounding developi:ients like the Fifth Avenue and the Durant softens the impact of the tower . The tower will not be that important of a physical feature. White encouraged the applicant to minimize the visual impact as much as oossible otherwise he has no -i Pardee objects to the design. It is the highest structure the Commission has allowed, even higher than the hotel . It will stick out above the ridgelinc in certain places. He wants to see 18 foot markers on the property to help visualize where the final height will be. T 1 Co-mmission who has final authority may be approving something that is 4010' higher than what presently is and may be approving something that will be the highest structure approved in town in the last ten years. He has no objection to the addition. The Commission has a responsibility 11 e r e. Pevton is bothered by the design. The bridge will be visible from the mountain. Yaw said that is not true , the bridge is completely invisible. T-11hite suo-oorted Pardee ' s suggestion of locating an eighteen foot marlr.er on the building. Hunt concurred. Harvey asked the .L I - Com=mission if it should table the application. Anderson said no. He argued the tower may be higher than the hotel , but it has a smaller footprint. Harvey does not have a problem wi'Cll proposal. Yaw interjected timing Is critical, but he would agree to anything which would help the Commission make a good judgeinen-It. McGrath said his client wants a decision. Tygre agreed it is not necessary to see markers. The foot-print is small , it will not be obtrusive. She encouraged the applicant however to minimize the size or decorate it or blend it in with the neighborhood. 5 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Special Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission July 10, 1984 Harvey entertained a motion to recommend the 8040 greenline approval . Hunt interrupted that there needs to be discussion about the residential addition, irrespective of the elevator the house needs 8040 greenline p ap . roval. Yaw presents elevations of the proposed expansion to the residence. He details the expansion: the lobby which receives the bridge, another elevator in the interior of the house , expansion of the master bedroom., decking, working office, lounge, mechanical spacing, etc. There is knoll which hides -part of the addition. The horizontality of the building is continued. The materials are stone and cedar. Harvey asked if planning office has any comment on the addition. Penne answered no. Penne advised the Commission to discuss how it will deal with FAR' s on parcels like this. Someone can purchase a strip of conservation land and increase their FAR substantially. That may not be a desirable thing to have happen. Harvey asked if the conservation zone should be changed to disallow residences. Penne replied conservation zoning allows a single family residence. If the applicant removed a kitchen, this home could be expanded to the limits of setbacks. The approach the applicant has taken is good. This ap'proach is documented in this review. There is no guideline in the code on how to handle the area in the conservation zone when dealing with a duplex use . There is no FAR for duplex.ing in the conservation zone. If the conservation parcel was larger , and a kitchen was removed, the applicant could expand his home infinitely. Harvey asked if Penne is asking for a Solution when the conservation zone is part of a, multiple zoning, or for a solution to the FAR on the conservation zone . Penne answered this needs to be investigated. It is a sensitive issue. Put in this case, there is a visible house 4 which is becoming very large, and may become larger. Hunt is sensitive to Pardee ' s position about the height. T-7hi t e- demonstrates that more structure is visible than what the architect has de=monstrated. Yaw argued the site line is very constrained by the two Durant buildings. Harvey entertained a motion for 8040 greenline approval on the He,-.umeter parcel subject to the planning office ' s conditions two through six (listed on page four of planning office' s memorandum dated July 10 , 19084) with the deletion of condition one. Anderson so moved. The motion dies, there is no second. 11cGrath stated there is no difference between his client and the planning office. llemmeter has no plans to further expand the house . His client wants to be treated just like anyone else. His client has to come back before the Commission to add even one square foot RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Special Meeting_ Planning and Zoning Commission July 10, 1384 Harvey interrupted. The motion can be amended if the applicant is willing to accept condition one, otherwise, the motion will die. INcGrat)1 said 0040 is broad, the Commission can turn t`1e applicant down. He suggested if the Commission wants to impose a limit on the ultimate buildout then impose this as a condition with the language "subject to the condition that the Commission will not grant further approvals beyond 13 ,475 square feet. " Tygre said there is a concern by the Commission about the size of the structure in that particular location. This is one tray of dealing with the size. She is not disturbed about the tower because it is a small projection into the landscape. Allowing much more potential buildout in the residence is a concern. She wants a statement of intent on the record that the Commission ;gill allow the -ieight to be e .ceeded for the elevator tower in exchange for a limit on the bulk of the building in general. Site suggested adding a seventh condition that the applicant acree to the extent that he will pursue further possible reduction of tale elevator tower or mitigate the visual impact. Yaw agreed with this. Tygre moved to recommend 004.0 greenline approval on the Hemmeter parcel subject to six conditions (listed in the planning office' s recommendations dated July 10 , 1084, one through six, page four and five) : 1 . A comr.?itment by the applicant to limit ultimate buildout to 13 ,475 square feet. 2 . The Water Department must perform flow and pressure checks on the fire hydrant and if a deficiency exists, a water pump or other remedy must be installed. 3 . A new fire access stair must be built at the southwest end of the structure and a new fire hose cabinet installed at the hvdrant location. 4 . further soil tests must be performed prior to construction which confirm that the soils can accommodate the additional epansion. 5 . Revegetation and landscaping plans must be completed as soon as possible following construction. 5 . Drywells must be installed to handle increase; roof runoff. And add a seventh condition: 7 . That the applicant agrees to pursue further reduction of height of the elevator tower or otherwise mitigate 7 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Special Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission July 10, 1984 it visually. Fallin seconded the motion. There is discussion on changing condition one. McGrath said the condition of approval that the Commission will not grant any further 8040 approvals for expansion beyond 13 ,475 square feet is satisfactory. He does not oppose the condition, but L his client is not voluntarily agreeing to the condition. He opposes the language that "his client voluntarily agrees to this condition" as part of the condition of approval ; otherwise it is a contract and this is not a condition in the code. Jasmine Tygre amended her motion so that condition one reads "the ultimate buildout will be limited to 13 , 475 square feet. " Seconded by Pat Fallin. Discussion. Anderson is not comfortable with the revision of number one. Every effort has been made to sensitively treat the addition. There is every excuse in the code to deny any abuse that would increase the FAR. Harvey agreed the Commission is in a stronger -position if the applicant voluntarily agrees to limit the FAR. Hunt will support the motion because of the additional condition. Pardee again stated the Commission is making tradeoffs. It appears the Commission is getting nothing -'roi-,i anyone in 18040 review. Credit does not have to be given for FAR in the conservation zone. The Commission is about to approve something that is not just a tower but a tower that 4 goes back across the horizon on the ridgeline. Ever- time one passes, one will say the Commission voted for that. Also consider what a 409i increase , which is the addition of 18 feet look" s, like. Harvey requests a roll call vote on the motion: Anderson, aye; 'I'ygre, cave; Fal 1 in, aye; Harvey, aye ; Hunt, aye ; Pardee , nay ; and Uhite, nay. .11otion carried. Harvey adjourned the meeting at 6 : 00 Barbara Morris, Deputy City Clerk