Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19960903PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3, 1996 Chairperson Sara Garton called the meeting to order at 4:40 p.m. with members Jasmine Tygre, Roger Hunt, Marta Chaikovska, Steven Buettow, Dave Johnston, and Tim Mooney present. Robert Blaich was excused. COMMISSION AND STAFF COMMENTS Dave Michaelson, Planner, commented the special meeting scheduled for 09/18/96 was canceled but the item was moved to the regular meeting 09/17/96. He also noted a special meeting will be held on 09/10/96 with Pitkin County and City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commissions to discuss Tim Malloy's HPDO overlay revisions. He further stated the Aspen Meadows Traffic will most likely be tabled and he had taken over the staff responsibilities for that project. Michaelson said a neighborhood meeting at Don Swales home (corner of Fourth & Francis) Thursday (09/05/96). David Hoefer, City Assistant Attorney, stated Item C - 702 West Main Street, Vet Clinic will be continued to a date certain. Suzanne Wolff, Planner, confirmed Joe Wells, Planner for Applicant, wanted to reschedule after the second reading at City Council. Michaelson proposed Tuesday, 11/05/96. Doug Nehasil, Public, Aspen Lodging Co. asked why Item IIID - Aspen Mountain PUD (Lots' 3 & 4) was not first tonight. Garton said she remembered that request. Michaelson said he did not recall but the agendas are set in advance. Hoefer noticed that on Friday when the agenda had already been done and apologized. Garton stated public meetings should be kept in the order of the agenda and Cindy Houben sets the agenda. MOTION: Hunt moved to approve the minutes from August 20, 1996. Seconded by Chaikovska. All in favor, motion carried. PUBLIC MEETING: Garton opened the public meeting Item IIIC-702 West Main Conditional Use Review to be continued at a public hearing at a date certain. Joe Krabacher, Public, stated his objection to postponement because he was not allowed to speak on the conditional use for this Vet Clinic on Main Street at the last meeting. Krabacher said the conditional use code amendment for Vet Clinic is inappropriate in the Office zone district and because it is so close to the R6 District. He feared problems won't be addressed in special review because there are no State and City regulations for Vets who do not kennel animals. He said PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3, 1996 Vets dispose of their needles, syringes, animal stool, etc. in the BFI Dumpsters and this is dangerous for other animals and/or children. He further noted no designation of staff, types of animals, or referral to Housing regarding the 2 ADU Units. Garton asked the Commission for agreement on the vote (08/20/96) to be taken to Council. They were all in agreement. MOTION: Hunt moved to continue the public hearing to a date certain for the 702 West Main Street Conditional Use Review to November 5, 1996. Tim Mooney abstained from the vote. The other members voted in favor, motion passed. PUBLIC HEARING: Orbe Conditional Use for ADU 712 West Francis Street, Aspen, Colorado David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney, stated the legal notice was sufficient and the Commission had jurisdiction to proceed. Bob Nevins, City Planner, introduced Lawrence Orbe, Applicant, and representative Denis Cyrus. Nevins stated the applicant requested conditional use approval to construct a voluntary 576 sf one bedroom Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). Nevins said the conditional use is a one step review process. HPC granted approval for renovation and addition of the garage and second floor ADU. No comments from the public. Garton congratulated the applicant on the attractive unit. MOTION: Hunt moved to approve the conditional use for the 576 sf Accessory Dwelling Unit located at 712 West Francis Street with the conditions 1 through 4 outlined in the Community Development Memo dated September 3, 1996. Seconded by Tygre. All in favor, motion passed. PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3, 1996 Valerio/Johnson 8040 Greenline and Conditional Use for ADU (1125 Ute Avenue, City of Aspen: Lot 3, Hoag Subdivision, Aspen) Steven Buettow asked to step down for this item since he is employed by Gibson Reno. David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney, stated the notice was sufficient and the Commission had jurisdiction to proceed. Suzanne Wolff, Planner, stated the applicants are represented by Augie Reno and Roy Parsons of Gibson Reno and Attorney Brooke Peterson. Wolff said the applicant requests 8040 Greenline approval to construct a 7,000 sf single family residence and Conditional Use approval for a 412 sf Accessory Dwelling Unit. She noted Lot 3 of the Hoag Subdivision (above 8040 Greenline) is adjacent to the Newfoundland Lode (located outside City limits) which received 1041 Hazard Review approval from Pitkin County to construct a single family residence. She further noted these two properties share the access driveway from Ute Avenue and both owners must obtain Special Use Permits from US Forest Service for the portion of the driveway located on USFS parcel. The 8040 Greenline Review: Section 26.68(C), no development shall be permitted at, above, or one hundred fifty (150) feet below the 8040 Greenline unless the commission determines that proposed development complies with all requirements set forth. (11 Staff Comments for consideration) Wolff said the entire lot contains very steep slopes (within the building site 45% ) with trees. She said drainage concerns must be met and the deep cut (30') proposed into the slope is not compatible with this terrain. Wolff further explained the deep cut is necessary to accommodate the amount of square footage proposed. She said trees will have to be removed but no building envelope delineated. She commented the residence (3 story) will be very visible from Ute Avenue and town even though it does comply with the allowed height limit of 28'. She said the roof ridge on the north facade is approximately 35' above finished grade with an extensive amount of glass (24'). Wolff stated there is question of compliance with the Model Energy Code. She noted the residence will be sprinkled. Wolff said Parks wanted to amend a trail easement. Wolff stated the ADU is located on the lower level of the residence with very little Northern exposed natural light. Roy Parsons, Architect for Applicant, noted a history on this project of approval and denial. He said this was a new client with an improved plan and reduction in 3 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3, 1996 size. He stated the external treatment had been refined to include Ordinance 30, reduced height and overall mass. He said the proposed building would be 25 - 30' in elevation lower than the approved adjacent property residence. Parsons responded to staff comments: 1. Building placement in the best location on the parcel. 2. Drainage will be mitigated. 3. Air quality is not an issue. 4. The subgrade actually lessens the impact on the site because the cut is designed to make the most of the slope and minimize visual impact with a smaller footprint. 5. The current footprint is 3978 sf distributed evenly over three floors. 6. The use of retaining walls as stepped down design to minimize disturbance of terrain and vegetation. There are many tall trees on this site that will not be disturbed by this project. 7. The Northern facade will have a gable roof to comply with maximum height requirements. 8. Sufficient water and utilities are available from Ute Avenue to be extended to the site under the driveway. 9. The driveway access will be shared with adjacent property and will include a turn around for the fire department. 10. Road will be maintained. 11. Access to the existing Nordic Trail on the site will be maintained for public access. Parsons stated compliance with staff recommendations for grading and size will be minimized on the best possible location. Garton asked the commission for questions to the applicant. Dave Johnston stated the ADU does not have enough ventilation or light from a code issue. He asked how it will be mitigated. Parsons replied the ventilation can be handled mechanically and by extending the hallway, more light could be introduced from the living room above to the ADU. Hunt said (after the site visit) the trail appears to be at the same level as the patio. Parsons replied that the building is set back about five feet from the trail. Hunt stated that the trees will probably be lost (cut) along the trail. Hunt said there is a great big abutment (15 + foot concrete wall) which is not a fire department turn around. Hunt would like to know how that wall got approved. Parsons stated that he had no prior knowledge of the wall. Hunt also noted the building looks like a 7000 sfresidence not a 3900 sfone. Johnston stated the 86 elevation puts the living area at the same elevation as the trail. No comments from the public. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3, 1996 Garton stated the commission is charged with a sensitive 8040 Greenline issue including specific criteria to review and agreed with staff that this applicant did not meet the criteria. She said the project doesn't meet standards #4, 5, 6 & 7. She noted the mass & bulk are not appropriate for the steepness of the site cut and grade. Garton further commented the commission has to comply with all eleven requirements. Augie Reno said to clarify the area that is affected is less than 10% of the parcel. He said the FAR is 800 sfless than what was approved in 1980. He stated the glazing is what adds the extra square footage to the FAR. Garton and Tygre stated that the glazing is a major issue. Garton further stated there is another wall on the other side of the road. Brooke Peterson, Attorney for applicant, said the road issue is a major one. He said the Newfoundland Road Access Design had to be approved by the County Engineer and Fire Department turn-around is County (not in the City). Peterson stated this road was not built by his client although it will serve their property. Wolff said the driveway sits on the panhandle of Hoag Lot 3 (located in the City). Michaelson asked Peterson to find out where the cut is in terms of City and/or County property. Reno stated the reason the building will be sprinkled is so that smaller sized fire trucks could service these properties. Garton said it might be appropriate to table but give the applicant some direction on the design. She stated clarification is needed from Staff and applicant regarding the access. Mooney said the glazing, the size of the house, amount of excavation and not a quality design is inappropriate on the site. Mooney said that he could not vote for the 8040. Chaikovska stated after looking at the very steep slope, her concerns are the turn around and the landscaping. Hunt said the screen landscaping won't be recouped below the existing trail and the house is too big for this spot. Tygre agreed with Mooney and Hunt. Tygre said every slope is over 30% with an avalanche path on one side and steeper slopes on the other side, plus the entire envelope is covered with a building. She noted this is not keeping with the Conservation Zone. She stated the building might be acceptable on a different lot in a different location but not there. Tygre said the large facades with double glazing do not blend into the mountain to minimize its visibility. Johnston said most of his concerns were already brought up and he is at a quandary with this project. MOTION: Hunt moved to table the Valerio/Johnson application to October 1, 1996 to allow the applicants to redesign the three criteria as listed as/44,/45 &/47 and the ADU from the Community 5 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3, 1996 Development Memo dated August 20, 1996 with the addition of establishing a plan for the fire apparatus turn-around. 4. The design and location of any proposed development, road or trail is compatible with the terrain on the parcel on which the proposed development is to be located 5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable , disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and land features. 7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend into the open character of the mountain. Tygre seconded. All in favor, motion passed. Peterson asked the Commission for direction on the ADU. Garton stated the Housing Authority had concern for many improvements to the ADU. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: Aspen Mountain PUD Lot 3 (Top of Mill Site) and Lot 5 (Grande Aspen Site) Conceptual Review - Continued Hunt asked to be excused from the rest of the meeting. Michaelson gave a compilation introduction of the standards for review by the Commission to determine a motion to take to Council. He said the 9/3/96 memo was edited from the last two hearings to include conditions for the Top of Mill. He stated the code is quite specific and the Commission needed to make a motion to approve, deny or approve with conditions in terms of the conceptual PUD. Michaelson, Sarpa, Rebecca took another look at the Top of Mill Trail on Thursday. Michaelson said the applicant is not convinced to give up that property but are willing to look at alternatives with a staked trail. Michaelson further noted that a site plan must be submitted including the of approval condition #6 for relocation of the trail. John Sarpa, Applicant, said the proposed conditions for Lot 5 are not as they amended them. Sarpa stated that on page 3, item #7 of the September 3, 1996 memo should read: (deleting all and replacing with its) The applicant shall comply with its representations summarized in a memo from the Engineering Department dated June 26, 1996. Garton stated in order for the commission to recommend this project for subdivision to City Council, the 6 specific criteria must be met as listed: PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3, 1996 1. The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. 2. The proposed development shall be consistent without the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. 3. The proposed development shall not be adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. 4. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements' of this chapter. 5. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography, or any other natural hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents' in the proposed subdivision. 6. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs'. Garton further stated that it was not appropriate to pass this subdivision request onto Council without all criteria in compliance. Sarpa replied that the practical difficulty (due to the complex and costly drainage issues) is not knowing the nature of the project. He said once the project is conceptually known, without obligation, then they can determine whether it is worth while to continue with the drainage analysis. Sarpa asked how can this project be moved to the conceptual level with enough guidance from the Commission and City Council. He said they were willing to accept the risk on the Geotech study and live with it and not wait for the study to be completed. Garton asked if the applicant was willing to wait two or three years for rezoning. Sarpa replied that all required work was to done before a final PUD. He asked that P & Z conceptually move onto City Council because the same issues will be reviewed. Garton stated that forwarding conceptual does not indicate that this will be rezoned. Sunny Vann, representing the applicant, said conceptual is based upon an agreement struck years ago and is subject to interpretation, however, he asked to defer the criteria procedurally until they can get a reading from Council. Sarpa stated the reason they have reached this point in Engineering is that 5 - 7 years ago they paid the City $250,000. for a master drainage plan. Sarpa further stated that nothing had been done until this current application finally got Engineering rolling forward (the City hired a Consultant). 7 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3, 1996 Sarpa asked that condition #9c be rephrased to: A debrisflow mitigation plan shall be developed as part of the storm water management plan to be performed by the City utilizing the $250,000. escrow. Vann requested that condition #11 be deleted. Michaelson agreed that it was the same as #9. Sarpa said that #9d is different from the 1985 strawpile issue since the Ski Co. had done some ditches and remediation. He asked that #9d be amended to read: The applicant shall cooperate with the Aspen Skiing Company on the strawpile issue. Michaelson said the issue came from Geotech report conclusions & recommendations on page 10 and read it into the record: Slope movements which increase in rate during the spring snowpack melt are known to be present on Aspen Mountain upslope of the project area. Long term movement monitoring at Strawpile has been done between 1987 and 1995. The Aspen Skiing Company has also done some work to improve slope stability during this period. However, most of the remedial actions recommended in 1985for Strawpile have not been implemented. The Skiing Co. should be approached to determine if they are willing to cooperate by making available the information they have developed over the years to the redevelopment project. Michaelson stated that if any applicant was to build next to an avalanche site or if the avalanche site was 4 properties over, an applicant would still be required to mitigate or at least prove minimal hazard to a future structure. He said the condition states "to work with ". Sarpa said if Ski Co. doesn't do the mitigation then he has a problem. Michaelson said that if the Ski Co. doesn't comply with their own Geotech report in later analysis, it is an issue. Vann said Ski Co. created man-made problems which could affect down slope properties. He said the drainage study and free flow study would indicate this and the City would impose an obligation to mitigate those problems that the Ski Co. may have created. Michaelson stated City P & Z, City Council and the applicant should fully understand every possible restriction on this site. Sarpa stated that they don't mind doing whatever they have to do to gain the approvals for their lots, but if the Ski Co. doesn't do what they are supposed to that Savannah will be held accountable for that. Sarpa said if you want to leave the wording as it is that's fine. He will go on record by saying that they will make every best faith effort they can. Michaelson noted as a recommendation to the applicant, Hepworth-Pawlak will require the same studies as the Ski Co. studies the next time around. Vann said the issue with the Ski Co. may not be resolved here. Vann stated if the agreement changes or the geotech changes, then they will be back before P & Z. 8 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3, 1996 Buettow noted there were no traffic conditions or mention of traffic. He said the people of the neighborhood have stated Mill Street is treacherous and this project adds a great deal of density at the top of this hill. Vann stated that a report from TDA (traffic Consultant) is part of the submission. Vann said there was no referral from the Streets Department but Engineering did request certain improvements. Buettow asked that traffic mitigation be added as a condition. Tygre asked about the language for revisiting the facade Deane Street. Chaikovska asked if all building envelopes at the Top of Mill were 8040 Greenline. She commented on the amount of brick on the facade. Michaelson, Vann and Sarpa all agreed that every structure will require 8040 Greenline. Garton noted that each building has its own review. Vann stated that there were parameters subject to further review. Garton asked if the conditions as discussed tonight were agreeable to the applicant. Sarpa and Vann agreed with Garton for the request of the approval of conditions. Michaelson added Condition # 13: The City Engineer shall review the process of traffic impacts on Mill Street in reference to Lot 3 and shall recommend mitigation if necessary before final PUD. Michaelson asked Hoefer for language from the commission regarding conceptual approval. Hoefer stated from code the condition is: Approval of a conceptual development plan shall not constitute final approval for a planned unit development (PUD), or permission to proceed with development. Such approval shall constitute only authorization to proceed with a development application for a final development plan. Mooney stated condition #7 addressed the specific 4 duplex units, but no level of discussion for the rest of the project with respect to buildings. Michaelson replied that much time was spent on size and the 8040 Greenline review had not been done nor had the project been rezoned. Michaelson further stated that 2 units had been dropped and the fact that the site is a natural bowl (12 feet lower than the ridge) are some of the issues discussed but the Geotech will decide. Vann said the basic concept of locating the single family homes on the flat area, the multi-family at the toe of the slope (adjacent to the neighboring multi-family) and the reduction of density as the project goes up the hill was acceptable. Mooney stated that might not be an acceptable concept, or maybe not those footprints. Garton stated the actual building envelopes have not been established for Lot 3 because of the 9 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3, 1996 Geotech. Michaelson said at final review discussion and decisions of height and mass will be made. Tygre asked what conceptual approval gave the applicant in terms of reliance. She said the commission could make changes at final but what does that say to the applicant. Sarpa stated that there was nothing to rely upon. He said that the complexity of this project and prior PUD had brought about these conditions and the need to move onto the next step. Vann stated the commission had the final authority on 8040 Greenline and scenic viewplane review. Chaikovska said the applicant had gone through the process twice because Geotech was not done first. She stated the only thing she would approve is the general concept without detail of architecture and density. She noted the details will be at 8040, rezoning and final reviews. Garton stated Council could redesign the entire Deane Street. Vann said this action the Commission has taken puts the project where it was the last time conceptual was approved. Vann stated the project had a basic concept, unit count, general location and a host of conditions needed to be addressed in the next stage of review. Garton opened the Public Hearing. Joe Edwards, Attorney for M. Teschner, stated that in 1985 the applicant was told the project was to be delayed until the Geotechnical study was done. He suggested P & Z reiterate the findings of the March 8, 1985 P & Z and re-determined those delayed recommendations for the Top of Mill Street until the geotech hazards are analyzed. He pointed out that the 1988 PUD agreement was signed by the applicant. According to this agreement, he said, Lot 3 required geological study before receiving preliminary development consideration. Edwards stated that the City Attorney's office told him this was the agreement for the benefit of the City. Edwards further stated this commission should revert back to the 1988 P & Z decision to delay until the geotech was done. He said what this commission is approving is implying to Council your blessing for this project. Edwards said the zoning has been in place for more than 20 years, and the applicant knew that when they bought the property. Gene Reardon, Fifth Avenue owner, asked where the mining tunnel was located from condition #9b. 10 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3, 1996 Jo Brummel, father owns Fifth Avenue Condo, said that she agrees with Joe Edwards. She stated the traffic is already greater than needed. She said this project would cut off the bottom of Aspen Mountain with these 17 units. Brummel noted the geotech needed to be looked at and conceptually 17 units was just too much. Ron Erickson, Mountain Queen, said the commission is conceptually approving the building of massive homes above the 8040 Greenline. He stated building above 8040 Greenline is not allowed. Doug Nehasil, Aspen Lodging Company, said Fifth Avenue Condos will no longer be considered ski in/Ski out if this project is allowed on Aspen Mountain. He noted the traffic is a maj or problem. Nehasil said in prior winters he called the streets department and the police because of traffic problems and adding 17 additional units will cause more problems. Steve Fallander, resident of Galena Street, stated Sarpa and his group have gone a long way to answer some questions, and it seemed that they have made allegations of certain rights of density. He said this project should go to the next step (to Council) because it is necessary to final out how many units will be built and where. Fallander said geological is his concern. Richie Cohen, Public, said the former project was twice as dense and the problems were the same. He said that it is a good quality project and should be passed onto Council. Sarpa stated the need to go to Council. Vann stated that P & Z's conceptual approval was needed. Chaikovska asked Hoefer for clarification on the record of APPLICABLE STANDARDS FOR CONCEPTUAL REVIEW (page 1 staff memo) and the next section SUBDIVISION (heading on page 2 staff memo) on how this applies to conceptual review and final review. Hoefer stated that those are the standards for final review for subdivision. Michaelson stated there are two separate reviews. Hoefer read the code again: Approval of a conceptual development plan shall not constitute final approval for a planned unit development (PUD), or permission to proceed with development. Such approval shall constitute only authorization to proceed with a development application for a final development plan. Garton closed the public comment portion of the hearing. 11 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3, 1996 MOTION: Tygre moved to recommend denial of Lot 3 because it does not meet General Requirements "A" & "B" as stated in the Aspen Land Use Code, and recommend approval for the Lot 5 portion of the PUD with the conditions outlined in the September 3, 1996 staff memorandum. A. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. B. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. Mooney seconded the motion. Buettow, Tygre, Mooney and Garton in favor. Johnston and Chaikovska opposed. MOTION PASSED 4 - 2. Buettow stated concern with criteria #4 & #5. He said #4 is a zoning problem and #5 reflects geotech problems. Tygre said this project is inconsistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan and the existing uses are small condominiums with a mix of residential and short term use as opposed to luxury residential enclave. Vann stated the rights for development are in terms of the agreement with the City of Aspen. He questioned the motion because the project was based upon a prior agreement. Garton stated the Commission is looking at this current application and not at any prior one. She said Council was to review any prior agreements not the P & Z. meeting adjourned 7:50 p.m. Commission and Staff Comments .......................................................................... 1 Minutes ................................................................................................................... 1 702 West Main Street (tabled to 11/05/96) ............................................................ 2 Valerio/Johnson ...................................................................................................... 3 Aspen Mountain PUD Lot 3(Top Of Mill) & Lot 5(Grande Aspen Site) Conceptual Review Continued ............................................................................... 6 12