Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20000627ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 27~ 2000 Jasmine Tygre opened the regular meeting at 4:35 p.m. held in the Sister Cities Meeting Room with Roger Haneman, Ron Erickson, Roger Hunt and Steven Buettow present. Tim Mooney arrived late. Bob Blaich was excused. City staff in attendance: Chris Bendon, Amy Guthrie, Nick Lelack, Joyce Ohlson, Community Development; Kathryn Koch, City Clerk. COMMISSIONER~ STAFF & PUBLIC COMMENTS Roger Haneman noted that the top 5 design teams were selected for Aspen Mass; the next 3 were still being evaluated. He felt this was a good beginning. Roger Hunt asked Kathryn Koch for the City Council Burlingame update. Koch replied that the point was to keep the ballot question on the August 8th Election. She said the pre-annexation agreement was scheduled for City Council on July l0th' Joyce Ohlson noted the calendar in the packet with no meeting scheduled for the 4th of July. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST None. PUBLIC HEARING: RED BRICK SCHOOL PUD AMENDMENT Jasmine Tygre opened the Red Brick School PUD Amendment public hearing to be continued. Motion: Roger Hunt moved to continue and table action on the Red Brick School PUD Amendment to August 1, 2000. Roger Haneman second. APPROVED 5-0. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: TECHNIQUES TO CONTROL HOUSE SIZE~ {Continued from 06/13/2000} Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing concerning technique to control house size. Joyce Ohlson stated that public notice had been received at the June 13th meeting. Alan Richman stated that they were into the hillside homes at the last meeting. Roger Hunt asked for clarification on the copula heights. Richman responded that the illustration was not a good resolution to the problem but a much better example were the plans that Sarah Oates distributed with a faCade that stepped back to speak as a perimeter of the building. Joyce Ohlson 1 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 27~ 2000 added that it was a definitely an inhabitable feature rather than impertinent part of the structure. Ohlson stated that lot size by zone district was requested at the last meeting; she distributed the document "Number of Lots Per Zone District by Size" dated July 13, 2000 noting the sizes of the lots (an example of lot size determination was Hunter Creek included in this data base). Richman reiterated that they were on page 19 of the report, "Hillside Houses" which needed to be brought forward because the language was not complete in this section. He said that this was not the focus of the assignment but wanted to bring this forward for the commission. Richman noted that the hillside house tried to fit as far back on the lot as possible, for views, which become 5 feet to 15 feet above the grade of the street. He noted the houses heights become very prominent going up the lots as the as much as 40 feet or 50 feet above the street and yet stepping back from the street but still come forward. Richman stated that formal language would be drafted in the form of Residential Design standards. He said that allowed the flexibility to control the solutions on a particular lot either non-conforming or impossible to occur without a residential design variance on a case by case basis. Richman noted the porch was an important pedestrian relationship between the house and the street and the porch of the house. He stated that an allowable height maximum above the street could have a relationship in the reduction of the mass and height based upon the site. He said the goal was to build at street level rather than above it. Richman noted another other way of reducing the limit, but not be successful, was to place a limit on the number of stories visible from the street. He said that would be difficult without some sort of height penalty for buildings on this type of lot. Richman mentioned the classic approach for a hillside house was to step-back into the hillside. He said that a standard could require a significant (6 feet or more) step-back to follow the contours of the hillside. Richman said that every hillside house may not fit because of a "cookie cutter" approach. Richman stated that separating the garage from the main house, but with the current standard of not allowing garage doors street-facing would present issues with the current design standards. 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 27~ 2000 Roger Hunt stated if in the case of hillside, unless there was a benefit of placing a one or two car garage at street level to service the house up on the hill or to break up massing enough. Glenn Rappaport, architect, stated that the creation of a pedestrian element at the street (a stairway or something to humanize the area) would then apply to the residential design standards. Jasmine Tygre noted that if an ADU were placed above this street-level garage, it gave her the vision of a gatehouse look. Richman noted that one-bay of the garage could face the front and the others face the back to accommodate the standards. Rappaport said that a 3 car garage may not be desired on the street level; pulling the mass away from the house may be more desirable. Lorrie Winnerman, public, asked the number of actual hillside lots that were available to be built on in the city, unless Red Mountain were annexed. Richman responded that they may not be vacant lots but tear-downs applications that were being submitted. Lorrie Winnerman stated that the garage being as close to the kitchen was an important factor. Roger Haneman asked how much excavation would have to be accomplished in order to accommodate a 3-car detached garage at street level. Richman noted this was an option depending upon the size of the lot and not a mandate. Richman stated there would be much neighborhood planning over the next year to accomplish the changes for the residential design standards. Bill Lipsey, public, noted that flat roofs became a more obvious impact. He noted that color helped to make the large houses disappear blending into the countryside. He said there could be a requirement of flat roofs on houses on slopes over X%. Lipsey stated that flat roofs worked quite well in this area because of the drainage engineering on these roofs. Rappaport stated that the flexibility in looking at every way possible to reduce the mass, a flat roof made the reduction by 15%; this was something to review. Steven Buettow stated that he wanted to encourage that the house be designed to fit into the slope rather than bringing the houses out. Tygre noted that was something the commission wanted to include in the 8040 Greeeline Review. Erickson asked to keep the guidelines as simple as possible. Richman stated the incentives (Table 1 & 2, page 4 & 5) illustrated the allowable FAR on sliding scales. He said that the only change may be the in the setbacks from one another to include more air between the units, with the side yard setback still meeting the minimum requirements. 3 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 27~ 2000 Erickson noted that number of non-forming lots would be a good figure to have available. Richman said that the maximum lot size included the merger concept, if an owner had 3 lots side-by-side, the 3 lots became one. Placing each lot in a separate corporation became the loophole created to avoid the combining of lots. MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to continue the public hearing on techniques to control house size to July 25, 2000. Ron Erickson second. APPROVED 5-0. PUBLIC HEARING: 1006 EAST COOPER AVENUE - LANDMARK DESIGNATION Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing on 1006 East Cooper Avenue, Landmark Designation. Proof of notice was provided. Amy Guthrie, stated the lot was undersized with an historic house on the property. Stands "B", "C" and "D" have been met. Geraldine Heyman. Public, stated that as a neighbor from the Sunrise condos, this shed encroached onto their property. She asked if City Council could grant an improvement to the building that encroached with the granting of this landmark designation. Heyman said this was not a duplex; the shed did not have a bathroom or kitchen but there was someone living in the shed at this time. She said the property was a mess and unclean. Heyman stated the shed extended 6 feet into the alley; She said that parking was a difficult maneuver because of this place. She inquired about the liability insurance and she said that she did not understand why she had to pay for this property to be cleaned up. Jasmine Tygre asked which items were under the P&Z purview. Guthrie responded that the clear zoning issues were given to Sarah Oates. Guthrie explained that the historic outbuilding that sat in the alley, was like many historic buildings, which were placed in random spots a long time ago. She noted that the City issued a revocable encroachment license, which could be taken away if so chosen at some point. She stated that she did not know if anyone was living in that building, but it can't be rented as a separate unit. She said that the owner of the building could request landmark designation; the City offers a grant, which was important that the building not be demolished but be restored. Tygre asked what effect Landmark Designation had on the encroachment license; she asked if these were two separate issues. Guthrie replied that there would be no effect on the 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 27~ 2000 license and that these were separate issues. Joyce Ohlson responded that enforcement and clarification of the encroachment licenses could handle some of the issues. She said that P&Z needed to look at the historical integrity of the building. Ohlson stated P&Z needed to recommend on the HPC recommendation. Steven Buettow asked what was the shed historically. Guthrie replied that it was a 19th Century building and part of the motivation for placing the property on the inventory. She said that HPC felt that this building was important enough not to be demolished. Guthrie said that more than likely the owners would move the building onto their property; she said that she felt this would be resolved. David Bluefield Pearlstein, owner, stated that he had not heard about the mess in the 7 years that he has owned the property and would clean it up immediately. Pearlstein explained that when he bought the property, he was told that the old the building placement was done prior to the incorporation into the city of Aspen; an old 1892 photograph depicted the placement prior to the house being built. Heyman asked the original size of the shed. Pearlstein replied that he did not know. MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to recommend that City Council approve landmark designation for 1006 East Cooper Avenue, Lots L and the west end 10 feet of Lot M, Block 34, City and Townsite of Aspen finding that standards B, D, and E have been met and according to the criteria sheet provided by the legal department with P&Z Resolution # Series 2000. Roger Haneman second. Roll call vote: Haneman, yes; Buettow, yes; Erickson, yes; Hunt, yes; Tygre, Yes. APPROVED 5-0. PUBLIC HEARING: 1250 RED BUTTE DRIVE - SECONDARY MASS VARIANCE Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing on 1250 Red Butte Drive and requested proof of notice on the secondary mass variance. Joyce Ohlson stated the notice was provided prior to the hearing. The commission served as DRAC for this review. Ohlson described the property as a total of 5 lots (one was an open space parcel). The subject property was Lot 3 of the Gaylord Subdivision, located off of Red Butte Drive. There was an aerial photograph included showing that the lot lines overlay. Ohlson noted there were 3 standards from the Residential Design Standards that the variance could be granted: a.) in greater compliance with the goals of the AACP; or, b.) a more effective method of addressing the standard in 5 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 27~ 2000 question; or c.) clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site constraints. Ohlson said that there were approved setback requirements when the Gaylord Subdivision was approved that they were different from the R-30, which would provide more flexibility in the side yard property setback line from 25 feet to the 10 feet in the R-30. She noted that the applicant wanted greater space between the houses in that subdivision. Ohlson stated the specific variance was for secondary mass, all new structures shall be located at least 10% of the total square footage above grade and completely detached from the principal building. She said staff did not see the 10%subject to site constraints or unusual lot size or shape and felt that the secondary mass could be attained on this site by re-design. Mark Ward, architect, John Davis and Gary Nichols, owners were present. Ward stated the house was further setback and all sides of the house contained a one- story element. He said the intent of the 10% rule for detached mass was met. Ward noted this was not in the main stream of Aspen. John Davis noted that Ordinance 30 was designed for the West End with setbacks of 10 feet. He said the lot was greater than the 20% and could not build on the back portion of the lot. He noted it was a long way off the road. Tygre asked the size of the house. Davis responded that it was 4,000 FAR with a loss for some slope reduction. George Caldwell, architectural committee for Gaylord Subdivision, said he came up with 6,200 square feet including the ADU (in the basement) and the garage. He said that he 25-foot setbacks were very nice and even though the other adjacent owners had not reviewed the plan, he felt this was a good plan for a spec house. Davis said that he also owned Lot 2, so he would be encroaching on himself. Ron Erickson stated that once the two lots were developed, there would be two different owners. Roger Hunt asked Steven Buettow as the DRAC Chair to comment. Buettow replied that the overall secondary mass was to break down the mass, but this was still one large mass in design. Buettow suggested bringing down the mass. Ward noted that with the 25-foot setbacks on each side, 50 feet of the lot was lost. Buettow explained that the one-story element was the intent of the inflection of neighbors houses and that the one-story element was not the secondary mass. Davis said that they were trying to use the lot to the best of their ability. 6 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 27~ 2000 COMMISSIONER, STAFF & PUBLIC COMMENTS ...................................................................................... 1 DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST .......................................................................................... 1 RED BRICK SCHOOL PUD AMENDMENT .................................................................................................... 1 TECHNIQUES TO CONTROL HOUSE SIZE, (CONTINUED FROM 06/13/2000) ........................................ 1 1006 EAST COOPER AVENUE - LANDMARK DESIGNATION ................................................................... 4 1250 RED BUTTE DRIVE - SECONDARY MASS VARIANCE ...................................................................... 5