HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20000919ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19~ 2000
Jasmine Tygre, Vice-Chairperson opened the regular Aspen Planning & Zoning
Commission Meeting at 4:30 p.m. with Steven Buettow, Roger Haneman, Roger
Hunt and Tim Mooney present. Ron Erickson arrived after 5:00 p.m. City staff in
attendance: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Nick Lelack, Fred Jarman and
Joyce Ohlson, Community Development; Kathryn Koch, City Clerk.
Jasmine Tygre asked if any members of the public were present for the Historic
Inventory and the 2000 historic update public hearings. Joyce Ohlson stated that
per City Council, those public hearings would be cancelled not continued.
COMMISSIONER~ STAFF & PUBLIC COMMENTS
Jasmine Tygre asked the best avenue to ask the housing board or authority to
aggressively pursue the purchase of existing older lodges or older condominium
complexes. She gave an example of the Cortina recently being utilized by a
private developer for employee housing. Tygre stated that she would like to see
housing efforts directed toward taking existing properties and figuring out a way to
make them useful since most of those properties were located right in town.
Joyce Ohlson suggested that the housing authority chairperson meet with P&Z to
convey the planning commissions' ideas. Ohlson said that they needed to be pro-
active about letting people know that there was a list for ADUs. Tim Mooney
stated that he had many questions for the housing authority; he asked why the
Gerald Hines offer to build out Truscott at $130.00 a foot was declined when the
housing authority was going forward with those project bids at $260.00 a foot. The
commissioners agreed to meet with the housing staff and housing board.
Ohlson stated that the COWOP process was adopted. Ohlson noted that Council
agreed that the Puppy Smith property (where the new Police Chief resides) would
be eligible for the COWOP process. She noted that Council requested 2 members
from the Planning Commission to preside on the COWOP Task Force Team for
that project. Roger Haneman volunteered. Bob, Ron and Charles would be asked
for their participation. Ohlson noted that these meeting also needed to be public.
Mooney said that he would like to serve on the Burlingame COWOP Team.
Mooney said that the tasks that P&Z members were signing up for were long range
tasks and there were P&Z members that have still not been appointed since spring.
He stated that a determination for the make up of the board with the appointments
were necessary and requested that any reasons be openly discussed. Mooney said
that when the time was not taken to duly appoint the designated board, it was
another level of the lack of confidence.
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19~ 2000
Ohlson stated that Council would review the Burlingame Village proposal and
eligibility for it being handled in the COWOP process at the September 25th
meeting.
Mooney said that when Buttermilk was submitted, the applicant was candid stating
that city P&Z had no jurisdictional rights to vote. He said that with the new urban
growth boundary, he understood that Buttermilk was now included into that plan.
Mooney asked if city P&Z should take some code action for jurisdictional voting
on the commercial development within the new urban growth boundary. Mooney
said that he would like to be able to place City P&Z in the position for review and
have the ability to vote on that project. Ohlson responded that the IGA was the
mechanism to establish the P&Z standing at those hearings, which has not been
formulated. He stated concern for the same thing happening like what happened
with the Zolines on Burlingame and what was happening with the SKICO on
Buttermilk. Roger Hunt added that a planning catastrophe was in operation with
the access to Burlingame and Buttermilk in the background. Hunt asked if the
County was involved and asked if the City P&Z would be involved. Hunt said that
if there was an urban planning area, it should be brought forward before everything
was lost. Tygre stated that every City P&Z member has expressed concern for this
in one way or another but the issues were raised month after month without
methodology for an approach to the problem. Tygre stated that planning was
supposed to be on overview and the P&Z members felt cheated by only obtaining
pieces and somehow were not allowed to put the pieces together. Tygre asked
where the answers for these very serious problems were to come from. Ohlson
said that sometimes P&Z raised issues outside its purview and have no control over
at this time. Ohlson said the IGA was the tool to be used for many of those issues,
which were for the Council and BOCC to direct the City and County Attorneys to
complete.
Tygre asked if a resolution from P&Z would be the avenue to take to put greater
pressure on the people who make those decisions to allow P&Z to have the
planning tools that were needed. Ohlson replied that was one avenue to take.
MOTION: Tim Mooney moved to request staff write a resolution (to
be brought back to P&Z) regarding the Intergovernmental Agreement
(IGA) becoming a top priority to coordinate Burlingame and
Buttermilk for City and County P&Z to have an equal stand on the
impacts gauged for this specific purview. Roger Hunt second.
APPROVED 5-0.
2
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19~ 2000
MINUTES
MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to adopt the minuets of 30 May, 18
July, 08 August and 05 September of 2000. Roger Haneman second.
APPROVED 5-0.
DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
CODE AMENDMENT - HISTORIC INVENTORY INCENTIVES AND
HISTORIC INVENTORY 2000 UPDATE
Jasmine Tygre stated that this Code Amendment on Historic Inventory Incentives
hearing has been cancelled indefinitely based on the earlier discussions.
MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to remove the hearing for the Code
Amendment Historic Inventory Incentives and Historic Inventory 2000
Update from the agenda at the request of staff. Roger Haneman second.
APPROVED 5-0.
Ron Erickson arrived. Joyce Ohlson explained that there was a revised agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION LOTS 12 and 12A- DESIGN REVIEW
STANDARDS - NON-ORTHOGONAL WINDOWS and A DRIVEWAY CUT
EXCEEDING THE 2-FEET FRONT YARD SETBACK
Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for the Callahan Subdivision Lots 12 and
12a. Tygre requested proof of notice. Jeffrey Hancox said the neighbors could
testify that they had seen it but did not have it with him. David Hoefer stated that
the rule was not to proceed with the public hearing without the notice; he asked the
applicant to obtain it. Hoefer noted the hearing would be moved to the end of the
meeting. Continued minutespage 8.
MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to amend the order of the public
hearing for Lots 12 & 12A Callahan Subdivision to the end of the
meeting for technical reasons. Ron Erickson second. APPROVED 6-0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
1270 SNOWBUNNY LANE -DESIGN REVIEW STANDARDS -GARAGE
SETBACK VARIANCE
Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for DRAC on 1270 Snowbunny Lane.
David Hoefer stated that the proof of notice was received.
3
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19~ 2000
Fred Jarman explained this was a variance request from the garage standard of the
Design Review Standards. He said the applicant, Joe Allen Porter and Pip Porter,
owned the single story duplex in the R-15 zone district. The standard requests that
on lots greater than 15,000 square feet (this lot was 21,227 square feet) the garage
maybe forward of the front faCade of the house only if the garage doors entry are
perpendicular to the street. Staff recommended denial of the ability to construct a
garage because it does not meet the three standards or constitute a hardship to
require a variance. Jarman noted there was a two-car garage in this duplex, which
was converted into living space in the early 1970's.
Hoefer noted the criteria sheet responded to the standards for review.
Roger Haneman asked if this applicant was the same applicant that converted the
garage in the 1970's. Pip Porter replied that they were the same applicants since
they purchased ½ of the duplex in 1975. Porter stated that her husband was a
planner and that she was an attorney. Porter asked P&Z to find that this request
was clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific
constraints. She noted the pie-shaped lot, which made it difficult to build on; the
second story was built in 1978. Porter said that the issue was fairness not hardship.
Porter noted that after the garage would be built, there would still be 50 feet of
frontage because the house was setback about 90 feet from the street. She supplied
each house's frontage from the street on the block and showed the site designs.
Porter stated that the garage could not be accessed from the back because of
easements, the large electrical banks, setbacks and the turn around to enter the
garage.
Porter showed photos of the proposed garage placement, location of trees in the
front of the house, the character of Snowbunny Lane, front placement of the
neighbors' garages and their lot in relation to the neighboring lots. She stated that
the neighbors had no objection to building the garage and there was no negative
influence on the streetscape. Porter said that they decided against 2 garages but
wanted to utilize windows in the garage doors to make the faCade more attractive
and pedestrian friendly.
No public comments.
Mooney stated that he wanted to make it clear that the friendly pedestrian faCade
was an important aspect to be included in the conditions of approval. He noted
that review could be done at a staff level.
4
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19~ 2000
Steven Buettow stated that an alternative could be to re-design the houses to go
back to where the garages were originally located; he said that those garages did
comply with the 10-foot setback and add the 400 or 500 square feet onto another
part of the house. Buettow said that would help the house, the yard, the neighbors
and it would comply with the code. Pip Porter replied that the costs would be
prohibitive to do that; she said that she spoke to Joe Zanin and it would be $400.00
a square foot to build. Porter said that would involve taking out functional nice
rooms to build a garage. Buettow noted that the plan showed that there were also
additions to the bedrooms, a hallway and a laundry added to the garage. Buettow
pointed out different placements for his proposed design addition without any
impacts. Tygre explained that this was not a debate but rather commissioner
comments based upon the 3 criteria set forth for review; she said the judgement did
not include length of residency or monetary matters. Tygre read the 3 criteria.
Porter responded that it did fulfill the criteria of the AACP vision by revitalizing
the permanent community by allowing existing residents to live comfortably in the
community at no cost or loss of community quality.
MOTION:Tim Mooney Moved to approve P&Z Resolution #43, Series
2000, for a variance for a garage placement for a duplex located at 1270
Snowbunny Lane finding that it was clearly necessary for reasons of
fairness related to the unusual site specific constraints and finding the
criteria were met utilizing the pedestrian friendliness to the garage
doors with the windows be included in the elevations and conditions of
approval. Ron Erickson second. Roll call vote: Mooney, yes;
Haneman, yes; Hunt, yes; Erickson, yes; Buettow, no; Tygre, no.
APPROVED 4-2.
Tygre explained that the commission had to follow the criteria even though she did
not agree with many of those standards. Tygre said that she agreed with Steve and
did not feel that this site was that unusual.
PUBLIC HEARING:
1285 RIVERSIDE DRIVE -DESIGN REVIEW STANDARDS -
SECONDARY MASS VARIANCE
Jasmine Tygre opened the DRAC public hearing for 1285 Riverside Drive and
requested proof of notice. David Hoefer stated that the proof of notice was
sufficient to proceed with the five-day posting.
Fred Jarman explained that the variance request was for secondary mass from the
Residential Design Standards. Jarman said that the applicant was Dale Hower
represented by John Galumbos and Rich Pavcek.
5
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19~ 2000
Jarman noted that the lot was 11,341 square feet containing an existing single
family residence, which would be razed and replaced with a proposed two-story
4,291 square foot single-family residence including an ADU. The proposed design
required a variance from secondary mass. Staff felt that since the existing structure
was being replaced, the applicant had a full opportunity to design a structure,
which met the Residential Design Standards without requiring a variance.
Tygre asked if many of the lots in this subdivision were 15,000 square feet or
smaller in this R-15 zone district. Joyce Ohlson responded that (Exhibit C) the
parcel location and vicinity map illustrated that this property was a little larger than
most of the other lots in the subdivision. Jarman noted that (Exhibit B) a photo
documentation of secondary mass illustrated what a subordinate linking element
was. Tim Mooney asked the architects if they understood Fred's explanation. Rich
Pavcek replied that they have met with Fred several times to discuss alternative
and have come back with this proposal. Pavcek stated that they understood the
rules.
Pavcek noted that regarding the secondary mass and subordinate linking element,
they felt the street elevation was deceptive as how the building presented itself to
the street. Pavcek distributed an illustration of a 3-D computer model that
demonstrated how it was actually proposed. He said that this house addressed the
street and many of the other houses in the neighborhood did not address the street
as they have achieved in their design. John Galumbos stated that perspective #1
(coming down the street) illustrated the proposal with and without trees with the
elevations. He noted that they did not go to the maximum height, which makes the
element look subordinate.
Ron Erickson asked if 4336 square feet was relevant to anything. Pavcek replied
that was the total size of the house.
Dusty Hamrich, public, asked if this 4336 was the maximum FAR including the
ADU. Galumbos replied that it was the maximum. Hamrich asked what the
follow-up would be on the ADU since she said that many ADUs were not being
used properly. Galumbos replied that they were not seeking the FAR exemption
for the ADU; he said that the owner would decide what to do with the ADU. Tygre
stated that an ADU did not have to be occupied under the current rules. Tygre said
if the unit was rented, then it had a 6-month occupancy requirement. Hamrich
asked what the follow-up was on the ADU. Tygre responded that P&Z did not
have the authority to follow-up on but rather it was an enforcement issue for the
housing office. Jarman explained that anyone could apply for an ADU that was
building a single-family home in the city, which was done administratively through
6
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19~ 2000
community development and enforced through the housing authority. Hamrich
stated that the key word was enforcement; she said that she received permission
from this board 5 years ago and built an ADU. Hamerich said that only one time
has she had an inquiry as to renting it and this fall she will finally rent it to an
employee. Hamrich stated that she was not against ADUs but rather the way that
they were followed-up on for the advantage of the employees of our town.
Erickson referenced the criteria for a subterranean ADU.
Tony Welgos, public, pointed his house out on the vicinity map (Exhibit C).
Welgos stated that he agreed with the staff recommendation for denial.
Sheri Grinnell, public, stated that she lived across the street and would be looking
directly at this proposed garage. Grinnell stated that she agreed with the staff
recommendation because she believed the interpretation was in favor of avoiding
the massive structures. She stated that she wanted to see the intent of the
requirement be respected for the sake of the neighborhood.
Lennie Oates, public, stated that he lived at 1205 Riverside Drive and introduced
his wife Cherie. Oates said that they would like to see the standard as interpreted
by the staff adhered to in connection with this matter. He noted this was one of the
last neighborhoods in town; he said that he hoped that P&Z would go along with
staff and require a re-design.
Kathy Welgos, public, 1295 Riverside Drive, stated that this was the first time they
had seen any plans. Welgos noted the proposed design went from lot line to lot
line and would be a huge home, totally out of the neighborhood character and it
would have an appearance of a fortress. Welgos said that she supported the staff
recommendation of not making it look so massive.
Bob Murray, public, 1235 Riverside Drive stated that he was the neighbor on the
other side. Murray said that the proposed house was massive which seemed to
expand as it went back and hoped that the board would consider protecting the
character of the neighborhood. He said he had hoped that the owner would
consider the neighborhood as well.
Sheri Grinnell noted that the points of the trees were made, but asked that the
board remember that the leaves were only on the trees 4 months a year.
Roger Hunt said that the prominent element extended over the subordinate
element, which completed defeated (the extended dormer off the massive roof) the
break up of the mass.
7
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19~ 2000
Mooney stated that he would make the motion in the positive on the advice of
counsel. He assured the commission that he would vote against this application.
MOTION: Tim Mooney moved to approve Resolution #44, Series
2000, the secondary mass of Residential Design Standards variance for a
single-family residence at 1285 Riverside Drive, Lot 19, Riverside
Subdivision. Roger Hunt second. Roll call vote: Erickson, no; Hunt,
no; Haneman, no; Buettow, no; Mooney, no; Tygre, no. DENIED 6-0.
Discussion:
Mooney stated that he was disappointed in the design and attitude; he said that the
architect and developer should find the talent to get above and beyond their needs
and to get with the community interest in mind. Mooney said it was clear what
kind of neighborhood this was and what was presented did not apply to the
common good.
Erickson commented that no criteria was met and after seeing the neighborhood it
convinced him that this would have a massive street front completely out of
character. Erickson stated that this would look like a castle. Erickson said that the
trees just masked the facade of the house on the computer drawings.
Buettow said there were two elements but the roof needed to be delineated and
articulated to break up the mass. Buettow stated that a model would have been
helpful.
Tygre stated that a physical model would have been better; she said that the 2-
dimensions in a drawing looked less massive than actually seeing the 3-dimensial
models. Tygre stated that the variance request was specific to secondary mass and
the definition of the word subordinate. She stated that this design did not meet
subordinate and did not see the difference between the primary mass. Tygre said
that she also felt disappointment in the design especially for this neighborhood
because it did not look like anything else in the neighborhood.
PUBLIC HEARING (continued from earlier in the meeting mi,~,tespage 3):
CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION LOTS 12 and 12A- DESIGN REVIEW
STANDARDS - NON-ORTHOGONAL WINDOWS and A DRIVEWAY CUT
EXCEEDING THE 2-FEET FRONT YARD SETBACK
David Hoefer stated that the posting was dated September 8th. Jasmine Tygre
opened the DRAC public hearing for Lots 12 and 12A. Nick Lelack stated that
they have worked with the applicant most of the summer because of the confusion
of the property being one or two lots and the meaning of the guesthouse. Lelack
8
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19~ 2000
said it was agreed that this would be considered one lot according to the amended
PUD agreement and when considering secondary mass. The guesthouse (Lot 12A)
was the secondary mass and would never be expanded from the current square
footage. Lelack said the lower ½ (lot 12) had about 63,700 square feet, about 2
acres, which allowed FAR of 6700 square feet.
Lelack explained that a non-orthogonal window was a non-traditional window,
another shape. The applicant requested between two and seven per side of the
house and only one was allowed by code. Lelack stated that since it was currently
a vacant property staff believed that the house could be design within the
Residential Design Standards and did not meet any variance criteria.
Lelack stated that the second variance request was from the garage floor standard
below grade of the street level not exceeding two feet in depth measured from the
natural grade. Lelack said that the neighbors (located in the county) had an access
easement on this driveway with one curb cut from Crystal Lake Road; the request
was to build a second driveway to come across a very steep and densely vegetated
area. Lelack said there was as steep drop off of about 8 feet, which would require
a significant fill of this area. Staff recommended denial because there was already
access located on theapplicant's property.
Jeffrey Hancox, architect for the owner Barbara Fleck, stated that the Residential
Standards were created for the west side of town and this was an isolated property
surrounded by the county. He said that because of the private nature of the site, he
did not think that it would be a problem to use the non-orthogonal windows.
Alice Davis, planner for the applicant, noted that he house will not be seen from
the highway or Crystal Lake Road or anywhere, except one property owner. Davis
said when the original approval was done it was agreed that the height would be
lowered 3 feet from what was allowed in the zone district, reduced to 25 feet.
Peter Dersen, public, introduced his wife Julie and stated that they bought Fritz
Benedicts house from the estate 2 years ago. He said that the architects designing
this massive new home never came to talk with them, although he said that they
made several efforts to talk with the architects. Dersen stated that he was the only
neighbor and that this house did not meet the mass requirements and now he
understood that the roofline would be 33 feet. He said that the windows make little
difference to them and had no objection to the applicant having their own
driveway. Dersen said that he vehemently objected to their disregard for the
roofline and blocking their southern views of the Ute Trail.
9
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19~ 2000
COMMISSIONER, STAFF & PUBLIC COMMENTS ...................................................................................... 1
MINUTES ............................................................................................................................................................. 3
DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST .......................................................................................... 3
CODE AMENDMENT- HISTORIC INVENTORY INCENTIVES AND HISTORIC INVENTORY 2000 .... 3
CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION LOTS 12 AND 12A - DESIGN REVIEW STANDARDS - NON-
ORTHOGONAL WINDOWS AND A DRIVEWAY CUT EXCEEDING THE 2-FEET FRONT YARD
SETBACK ............................................................................................................................................................ 3
1270 SNOWBUNNY LANE -DESIGN REVIEW STANDARDS -GARAGE SETBACK VARIANCE ........... 3
1285 RIVERSIDE DRIVE -DESIGN REVIEW STANDARDS - SECONDARY MASS VARIANCE ............. 5
CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION LOTS 12 AND 12A - DESIGN REVIEW STANDARDS - NON-
ORTHOGONAL WINDOWS AND A DRIVEWAY CUT EXCEEDING THE 2-FEET FRONT YARD
SETBACK ............................................................................................................................................................ 8
11