Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19960423PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 23~ 1996 SPECIAL MEETING Chairperson Sara Garton called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. with members Jasmine Tygre, Roger Hunt, Robert Blaich, Steve Buettow. Excused were Timothy Mooney, Marta Chaikovska. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Buettow requested that the Smuggler Mtn. affordable housing project stake out the buildings with story poles. There were no members of the public to comment on items not on the agenda. Rio Grande Park/Stream Margin Review STAFF COMMENTS Suzanne Wolff, Staff stated that the Parks Dept. has applied for a Stream Margin review to repair and stabilize the area adjacent to the Rio Grande trail that collapsed because of flooding in 1995. Wolff said the Parks Dept. is proposing to re-work the area with rock and extend the rock embankment upstream and downstream of the failed area to provide reinforcement, they also propose to make repairs to the inlet and kayak course. Wolff also noted that the Parks Dept. would like to do the rock work, this spring, before high water and do re-vegetation work after high water, Allan Czenkusch will be supervising the project. Wolff said the Army Corp of Engineers has authorized the repair work under the nationwide permit # 13 for bank stabilization, and the kayak course repairs are authorized for the maintenance required under the original permit. Staff recommends approval with conditions. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Hunt asked if the Parks Dept. was anticipating moving the trail up on the embankment around the old impound lot. Rebecca Schickling, Parks Dept. responded not right now, their main concern is stabilizing the area. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 23~ 1996 SPECIAL MEETING Garton asked if the Parks Dept. would be back in front of P&Z for the trail alignment. Schickling responded they would. Garton asked how long the trail will be closed. Schickling said that it could be a couple of months because the concern with the bank stabilization is that the area be secured. MOTION: Blaich moved to approve the Stream Margin Review for the repairs to the embankment and island in the Roaring Fork River at the Rio Grande Park, with the following conditions: 1) The applicant shall inform the property owners of the adjacent and opposing river banks, upstream and downstream of the work to minimize disturbance in the river (specifically the Moore family and the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District). 2) The applicant shall provide 3 cross sections of the work area prior to and at completion of the work: one at the approximate centerline of the work, and the other two 100 yards upstream and downstream of the centerline. 3) The applicant shall provide before and after photos of the work area and of the opposite river banks to the Engineering Dept. 4) The applicant shall restore the Rio Grande Trail to its present condition or better by October 1, 1996. 5) Silt fencing shall be used to prevent any erosion of sedimentation from entering the river. 6) Provisions shall be made to ensure that the work areas are fully stabilized prior to high water to minimize damage before the areas are re-vegetated after high water. 7) The Engineering Dept. shall approve the access route to and from the river bed prior to issuance of a construction permit. 8) Access to the work area shall be delineated and controlled to prevent unauthorized entry into the work area. 2 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 23~ 1996 SPECIAL MEETING 9) All representations of the applicant are considered conditions of approval. Seconded by Tygre. All in favor, motion carries. Aspen Mountain PUD, Lot 5 / Conceptual Review Grand Aspen Site Dave Michaelson, Staff said this is a continued public hearing from April 9, 1996, Staff identified some conceptual issues, particularly the Dean Street building in addition staff has not reviewed any elevations and would want time to review before making a recommendation to the Commission. Michaelson stated that the commercial areas are being looked into. Sunny Vann, representing Savanah Ltd. Partnership said that the overall height of the Dean Street building has been reduced, we took the top two townhouses off and added a fifth townhouse on both Galena and Mill St., the building was lowered slightly and the footprint was expanded into the rear open space reducing the building from 55ft. to approximately 43ft. Vann said the applicant does not propose to relocate the townhouses on Galena Street further back from the curb, these buildings meet all the applicable set backs. Bill Poss, architect for the applicant, said they were still well above the open space requirement, the ramps in the garage are steeper and the buildings have been lowered one to two feet. Poss stated that articulation of the roofs are an important design feature, the center portion is 43ft. and the ends conform to the 28ft. height to the third point. Tygre asked how wide is the silhouette of the upper 43ft. expanse. Poss responded it is approximately 115 - 116ft. across. What is the total width of the lot on the street facing Dean. Poss responded it is 270ft. from lot line to lot line. Vann stated that the majority of the height variance on the Dean St. building occurs within the roof structure, it is not a third floor. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 23~ 1996 SPECIAL MEETING Garton said the criteria for granting a variance is very strict, and she does not see that this parcel meets those restraints and can't understand a variance. Sarpa asked that they go over those criteria, he said he fails to see what this does not meet. Garton responded that the applicant is stuck on a number granted in the original PUD, she didn't know if the parcel could support it. Sarpa asked what the criteria is for a variance. Vann said there seemed to be some confusion between the criteria for a variance granted by the Board of Adjustment and P&Z's ability to vary dimensional requirements under the PUD provision. Michaelson responded that there is a different classic variance granted by the BOA which has very specific criteria that the applicant show a hardship, the distinction that Vann makes is that when within a PUD, a PUD allows the ability to be granted those variances, the classic hardship criteria are not typically part of the PUD review. David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney, responded that in fairness to the applicant, we will do a memorandum to the Board explaining what is legally correct, he will discuss it with the City Attorney and by the time we meet again we should have a clear understanding as to what the City's position will be in regards to that. Vann commented that PUD regulations provide an ability to vary the dimensional requirements to achieve a better site solution, the idea was not to force someone through the strict application of the dimensional requirements if there was a better way to design, in our opinion it does not require you to demonstrate a hardship on the site. Vann said the only change made to the PUD regulations was after the Ritz, the ability to vary FAR was removed from this provision of the Code, all the other requirements can be varied subject to the specific approval of the PUD development plan. Michaelson said the criteria are in the April 9th Staff report, the two most important when talking about the height are 1) the concept of consistency with "the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area" and that the entire PUD including the height variance doesn't; 2) "adversely afJbct the future development of surrounding area", Staff noted that it is likely that property in and around that area will redevelop because the height of this building may drive PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 23~ 1996 SPECIAL MEETING variances based on the same criteria and design constraints the applicant says they are under. Michaelson said the applicant has to make an argument as to why that building should be 55, or 42, or 30. Garton said she did not see design constraints except that the applicant is looking for a certain number of units and that seems to be driving the height of this building. Vann said it is more than that, we could be consistent with the neighborhood and build a flat roof, but we will not have an architectural solution that we feel works for this site. Sarpa said it is not just the number of units, architecturally once we go below our current height those roofs will flatten considerably and we will lose some of our architectural features. Sarpa said he felt they made their best faith effort, they can't go lower and maintain the architectural integrity. Blaich stated that he felt the applicant had come a long way and would like them to maintain the architectural integrity of the structure. Blaich said he feels the front elevation will be seen the most in mass and height, the 115fl. long area on the top will not really be seen, because the surrounding houses will look at that area at an angle. Buettow asked that the applicant use the original story poles with the orange flags at 55ft. and add a different color flag at the new proposed height so the Commission will see the visual impact. ross stated that by varying the height of the building we will get rid of the wall affect along Durant and create a pedestrian friendly look along the area and if a light rail does come in we have developed a landscaped softness, ross said that by varying the height we get a better urban design. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Hunt said the way he looks at this is, the number of units were given, it was negotiated by City Council from the overall plan, they have eliminated the 50 hotel rooms they were allowed in addition to the 47 residential. Hunt stated that he felt r&z is not entitled to bargain down the number of units given from a previous action. Hunt feels the reduction in height is a tremendous improvement. Buettow said he liked the reduction of the height and looks forward to seeing the story poles and how they interplay with the surrounding areas. 5 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 23~ 1996 SPECIAL MEETING Tygre also agreed that the height reduction is a great improvement and like the other members of the Commission, she would hate to see a flat roof come as a result of strict adherence to the height limit. Tygre said she would like to see more height taken off all the buildings and move it into the open space, she asked if the applicant had considered reducing the size of the individual units. Sarpa said they tried to reduce the size of the individual units, they have eliminated bedrooms, ect... Sarpa said the only other option is to start moving units up to Top of Mill. Tygre said the last thing she wants to see is more density up on Top of Mill. Fred Pierce, public representing Alpenblick Condominiums stated that he is encouraged to hear the applicant is no longer asking a height variance on the rear units, in reading the Code, Pierce said he is unclear as to where the grade is being measured, which is lower. Vann responded that the closest thing to natural grade on the Mill St. site is approximately street grade. Michaelson said that in the case of site redevelopment, Stephen Kanipe, Staff Building Official, goes back and establishes the original topography on the site prior to the development. Michaelson said that street grade could be as high as one foot above the original topography. Jerry Monkarsh, public stated that he is concerned with the floor to ceiling height and the setbacks on Galena, he asked that story poles be put in on the Galena set back. Don Crawford, public wanted to verify that 72 parking spaces will still be provided. Sarpa responded that they would. Garton noted a letter from Steven and Debra Falender addressing there concerns. Hunt added that some of his concerns include the visual impact of the roof as you come down the hill. Hunt said that he would like to see that the equipment, if any on the flat roof will not be visible as you come down the mountain. Tygre added that she feels very strongly about this issue and she would also like the applicant to make the appropriate representations. 6 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 23~ 1996 SPECIAL MEETING Garton asked about the superimposed photographs Staff asked the applicant to provide. Vann stated that they were waiting to find out if the Commission would consider the height variance before making the photographs. Vann said the photographs will be provided for the next review. Garton asked about Staff' s recommendation to integrate the proposed structure, ice rink, gondola, and development to the West through careful design of corridor elements. Michaelson said Staffs concern is that this corridor is where "it" happens, Michaelson said he would guess that there are more pedestrians walking between the Ritz on Dean Street to the gondola than are walking on Main Street. Staff wanted to impress on the applicant was, that is something Staff will be concerned with. Vann acknowledged that is probably one of the most key pedestrian links, and we did not spend a lot of time landscaping at the conceptual level. Vann said that the ice rink is not part of this application and they are more than happy to consider making revisions to the ice rink, but Council imposed very specific limitations on the use of the ice rink. Michaelson said he would argue that although the ice rink is a separate lot (Lot 6), it is part of the same PUD agreement that defined the GMQS allocations, the constraints that are on the ice rink as far as commercial uses are in that agreement. Michaelson said he would hate to lose the opportunity to turn the ice rink into a more functional public space, just because it happens to be lot 6. Vann stated that it is different in that we can't laterally make the changes with out Councils input. Sarpa went over a drawing of potential commercial uses in and around the ice rink. Vann said the biggest challenge will be dealing with the noise, at this point you can barely carry on a conversation. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 23, 1996 SPECIAL MEETING Vann stated that it is different in that we can't laterally make the changes with out Councils input. Sarpa went over a drawing of potential commercial uses in and around the ice rink. Vann said the biggest challenge will be dealing with the noise, at this point you can barely carry on a conversation. Buettow asked what the applicant is considering for a floor to floor height. The applicant responded that it could be anywhere from 10-11. Poss said that they would probably go under 9' ceiling height. Garton continued the public hearing of Aspen Mountain PUD to May 14,1996. Meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m. L�k 9, 1 - " Z 4-Z 2 Amy G. S mid, Deputy Clerk