HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19990803ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 03, 1999
COMMISSIONER, STAFF AND PUBLIC COMMENTS ................................................................................. 1
MINUTES ............................................................................................................................................................. 1
WILLIAMS RANCH SUBSTANTIAL PUD AMENDMENT ............................................................................ 1
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT CODE AMENDMENT ................................................................................ 1
MINOR PUD CODE AMENDMENT ................................................................................................................. 2
550 ASPEN ALPS ROAD, MITCHELL - 8040 GREENLINE, VARIANCES .................................................. 4
LAND USE CODE DEFINITIONS ..................................................................................................................... 8
10
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 03, 1999
Bob Blaich opened the regular meeting at 4:35 p.m. with Roger Hunt, Steve
Buettow, Tim Mooney, Ron Erickson, Tim Semrau and Roger Haneman. Jasmine
Tygre arrived at 4:55 p.m. Staff present: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney;
Chris Bendon, Joyce Ohlson, Julie Ann Woods, Community Development; Jackie
Lothian, Deputy City Clerk.
COMMISSIONER, STAFF and PUBLIC COMMENTS
Tim Mooney requested a checks and balances for the approval process when the
city was involved with housing projects. He said that he was asked not to attend
certain meetings. Bob Blaich asked for the protocol, what's appropriate or not in
meetings, especially when a P&Z member was invited then told not to attend. Ron
Erickson stated that if the housing board were an elected board then they could be
held accountable to private citizens. He said there would be 2 separate entities
without a city councilperson or a county commissioner on the housing board.
Roger Hunt noted that there was a real problem with the appearance of the housing
board having an accelerated process from city council; he said the system was not
working. Mooney said that if there were some teeth in the approval process, then
he would be more comfortable with the process regarding P&Z in the review
process. Blaich asked for a response from staff regarding these issues. David
Hoefer noted that the new council intended to meet with the different boards and
maybe the difference could be ironed out. He said it was positive for the
commission to meet with council.
MINUTES
MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to adopt the minutes of 29 June 1999.
Ron Erickson second. APPROVED 7-0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
WILLIAMS RANCH SUBSTANTIAL PUD AMENDMENT
Bob Blaich opened the public hearing.
MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to continue the public hearing and
table action on the Williams Ranch Substantial PUD Amendment to 21
September 1999. Jasmine Tygre second. APPROVED 7-0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT CODE AMENDMENT
Bob Blaich opened the public hearing. David Hoefer stated for the record the
public notice was provided.
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 03, 1999
MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to continue the public hearing and
table action on the Accessory Dwelling Unit Code Amendment, at the
request of staff, to 24 August 1999. Jasmine Tygre second. APPROVED
7-0.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (06/08/99):
MINOR PUD CODE AMENDMENT
Bob Blaich opened the continued public hearing. Chris Bendon stated that all of
the large projects come through a PUD process; there were 2 portions of the code
that dealt with the setbacks, parking, etc. Bendon said that this would affect the
lodge preservation program by providing more flexibility based upon their
circumstances. This re-write extended the PUD process to those LP properties.
The FAR could be amended as well as other dimensions amended through this
review.
Jasmine Tygre said that there might be a lot of non-conforming expansions coming
in for approvals on their property. She said that there might be a philosophical
conflict because the non-conforming property might ask for more non-conformities
which may be difficult for the commission to deal with down the line. Bendon
responded that the LP program came about to recognize the LP projects scattered
about in residential areas that were non-conformities in use, dimension or for the
area for everything. He said what it did was allow the ability for the small lodge to
come in and re-establish their zoning. Bendon noted an example of the St. Moritz
being too tall for the surrounding properties, that height could not be extended to a
new portion of the structure, only the existing portion would be grandfathered.
Bendon said the small lodge would have the flexibility to apply, it did not mean
that they would automatically be approved to extend a non-conformity but they
would have to go through review. Bendon stated that the Cortina came in for an
expansion of FAR and could not expand under the existing code; they could not
even go before a board. Julie Ann Woods stated that with the revision there was
the opportunity of replacing existing deed-restricted housing with better deed-
restricted housing; that was part of the goal of this process. Blaich noted that this
was a way for the small lodge to come back in with a more acceptable proposal.
Bendon reiterated this would be the opportunity to for a small lodge owner to
remain a small lodge owner in today's market, to tear down and rebuild. Mooney
said that the Ritz changed the hotel industry in town and so will the Grand Aspen
and therefore a way for the small lodge owner to survive needed to be provided.
Bendon said that the aggregate square footage cannot exceed the underlying
zoning, this was for dimensional requirements. The commission asked for the
clarifications in Ordinance 30 with these changes. Bendon said that Ordinance 30
did stand on it's own and the applicant must be compatible with the neighborhood.
2
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 03, 1999
He explained that the requirements were on page 6 of the proposed PUD
amendment. Blaich noted that this provided a tool for proposals to come in and
ask for density increases.
Hunt asked if the SPA would be phased out or would it be integrated somewhere
else in the code. Bendon replied that it would with the exception of the use; he
said it needed to be done in a very careful way because the conceptual SPA rezones
for certain uses. He said that he did not necessarily want to include this in the
revision at this time but rather as a follow-up. Bendon stated that the motion for
tonight did not include this additional use issue. Hunt said that when there was a
change in use related to zoning, then it became a SPA and needed a name change
for the final product. Bendon said that he wanted to know which way the
commission was leaning on this amendment. Ron Erickson said that on page 5 of
the proposed PUD, it should include the storm sewer system, based on
hydrological reports that none of the city's systems were adequate. Bendon stated
that he would add under condition #2a. if there was not sufficient water pressure,
drainage capabilities or other utilities. Erickson stated that he wanted to make the
distinction between natural drainage and man-made drainage.
Bendon said should these applicable changes go to only LP or include small
affordable projects, which could be reviewed with the community director's
review. Mooney said that the town was really not big enough for a lot of the use in
the long term.
Bendon said the criteria was pages 6-10 and asked for the commission to be
comfortable with the changes. Hunt asked to include Ron's language in the site
design #6. Blaich agreed that should be included in the language so that it was
clear to the applicant. Woods cautioned that the language not included the
neighbors. Bendon stated site drainage would accommodate the proposed
development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact
surrounding properties.
Bendon said that page 14 of the proposed PUD would allow the applicant to go
through the process a little bit faster with more flexibility at the staff or P&Z level.
He said that would also allow P&Z to either forward onto Council if they decided
it was necessary for that level of review (4 public hearings) following the criteria
established. The paragraph was reworded in the final P&Z Resolution #99-18.
Herb Klein, public, asked if there was a minimum lot area for the dwelling unit that
can be varied by PUD, which was still in the amendment. He said that was really
the density. Bendon replied that it was but did not allow a change on the entire
3
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 03, 1999
parcel; an individual space could be smaller but there still had to be the open space.
This would apply to any PUD. Tygre stated that there was a specific criterion but
maybe not with the ammunition necessary for back-up if an applicant does not get
what they want; she said this was the can of worms ordinance and could not
support it.
Alan Richman, public, stated that Council removed this ability after density
bonuses were granted as part of the Ritz approval. He said that FAR variances and
density variances were removed from the PUD by Council. Bendon said that his
response was not to approve a project if it was too dense. Klein said that legally
you couldn't require someone to give you something, like a trail; there were still
standards that needed to be applied. He said this was almost a step backward; the
Aspen code had pretty good standards and the case needed to be made upon those
standards. Hunt stated that the wording had to be just right, otherwise lawyers
would pick the amendment apart. Hoefer noted that the criteria standards had to be
very tight. The commissioners agreed that they would like to keep the density
issue out of this amendment.
MOTION:Roger Hunt moved to adopt P&Z Resolution/499-18
recommending to City Council approve the amendment to the Land Use
Code 26.445 (PUD) Planned Unit Development regulations as provided
in and as amended in discussions regarding site drainage and the appeal
process. Ron Erickson second. Roll call vote: Buettow, yes; Semrau,
yes; Mooney, yes; Tygre, no; Erickson, yes; Blaich, yes; Hunt, yes.
APPROVED 6-1.
PUBLIC HEARING:
550 ASPEN ALPS ROAD, MITCHELL - 8040 GREENLINE, VARIANCES
Bob Blaich, Chairman, opened the public hearing and requested the notice. David
Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney, stated for the record the affidavit of notice met the
jurisdictional requirements and the commission had the authority to proceed.
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk, distributed letters that were presented by
Pamela Cunningham, Aspen Alps (Exhibits 5). Hoefer provided the criteria sheet
for the commissioners review process.
Chris Bendon, staff planner, explained this review was to consider a residence at
550 Aspen Alps Road for 8040 Greenline, variances to the front, side and rear set
backs and an appeal of the residential design standards for garage placement.
There was a requirement that the garage be recessed 10' from the front faCade; they
were asking for a variance from that standard. Bendon noted that a hardship must
be shown to grant a variance. He illustrated the proximity to the Aspen Alps from
4
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 03, 1999
this property that was located on a very steep slope in the conservation zone. The
conservation zone required a minimum lot size of 10 acres; this parcel was a little
over 10,000 square feet, considerably smaller than what was allowed in the
conservation zone. The surrounding properties were zoned LTR and R-15;
rezoning possibilities were explored, but this parcel was still too small for LTR or
R-15. Bendon stated that the set backs did not work for this property; the house
was 5 levels moving up the hill; the set backs were provided in exhibit 3 of the
memo. The existing set backs were 14' in the front yard, 32' side yard and 2' rear
yard with a fairly large deck beyond the 30" allowed. Bendon noted that the
proposed house requested the same 14' front yard set back. The applicant was
basically going to scrape and replace with the entry in the same place.
Jasmine Tygre commented that it was difficult to review the square footage on the
plans and asked if the proposed house was in fact larger than the existing one.
Bendon answered that the square footage was not on the plans and the applicant
would address the proposed house in detail.
Steven Buettow inquired about the 8040 Greenline contour with respects to the
proposed house. Alan Richman, planner for applicant, replied that the house was
above the 8040 Greenline. Bendon responded that 8040 considered all portions of
the house in the review.
Ron Erickson noted that variances may only be granted for a minimal variance if a
hardship has been proven. Bendon stated that clearly a variance was needed for a
reasonable use of the parcel, otherwise the parcel could not be used. The existing
house had some structural difficulties, it was falling apart and the applicant looked
at several different remodel possibilities but an elevator was needed. Bendon said
they encouraged the applicant to review the surrounding parcel setback for the
appropriateness. He said staff felt this was a minimum variance request
considering the site constraints; this provides a reasonable use of the parcel.
Bendon stated that literal interpretation of the zoning would deprive the applicant
common rights enjoyed by parcel in the same zone district and would cause the
applicant unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty; it does. He said there were
special conditions unique to this parcel that were not to other parcels in the same
zone district; this parcel was only 10,000 square feet which the conservation zone
district required 10 acres.
Richman introduced Gary Tabasinske, the architect for the original house on the
property (hired by Fritz Benedict) and now for the Mitchells, the current applicant.
Richman also introduced Cynthia Mitchell and her son Todd. Richman noted that
Jay Hammond, the engineer from Schuemueser, Gordon, Meyer was also present.
5
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 03, 1999
Tabasinske described the original house design and that he was contacted to
remodel the house but the form of the house was difficult to add onto in it's present
state. The foundation had severe cracking, the structure was deformed inside the
house with very little insulation and single glaze windows. He said the roof and
siding needed to be replaced and taking everything into consideration there was
nothing left to remodel even though the family loved the house. Tabasinske stated
that the proposed house was 4 floors plus the garage level with an elevator; a
dining room was added. He explained the details of the replacement structure
being less of an encroachment with the underground garage and provided colored
renderings showing the elevations. The failing wood cribbing would be replaced
with concrete retaining walls in the same locations and height faced with stone to
be in keeping with the Alps development. The bulk of the house was well below
the 28' height limit with the exception of one small portion being less intrusive
than the existing house. Tabasinske provided photos of the existing house
comparing those to renderings of the proposed house depicting trees and
landscaping.
Buettow also requested the size of the existing and the proposed house. Tabasinske
replied the original house was 2,200 square feet and the proposed house was 4,500
square feet. He said the garage, four guest bedrooms, a dining room, as well as an
interior stairwell were included in the new square foot calculations.
Roger Hunt stated that the apparent size of the house was a problem because of the
slope reduction, which would be included on a normal lot. Richman responded
that it would be about 3,800 square feet using the R-15 or conservation zone, with
a 25% reduction, the sliding scale it would be 4,150 square feet. Richman said the
application had been submitted months prior to the conservation zone changes.
Erickson asked why the 2-year drainage plan; it had nothing to do with this
applicant but rather with the neighbors. He suggested more than a 2-year study
would be appropriate because of the site. Bendon stated there were concerns for
the consideration from the natural and snowmaking impacts on the mountain. Jay
Hammond replied that the specific drainage analysis was based upon a 100-year
event curve in calculating the volumes; he agreed that with a 2-year curve a more
conservative analysis might be a better approach. Hammond said that a few years
ago the SkiCo added a channel in the vicinity of the base of Lift 5 which directs
Spar into the historic drainage so Spar does not split into Nell. Hammond noted
that concerns were valid regarding snowmaking because it increased the average
snow pack that was dealt with on a physical basis. The drainage was based upon
the typical desire to recharge that water into the ground and that may not be a
desirable solution and he had some suggestions to respond to those concerns.
6
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 03, 1999
MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to extend the meeting to 7:15 p.m.
Roger Hunt second. APPROVED 7-0.
Pamela Cunningham, general manager Aspen Alps, provided the history of the
Mitchells and the Aspen Alps. She noted 4 major concerns from the Aspen Alps:
drainage issues, new home excavation and soils conditions, construction staging
and size of the new house. She noted there were concerns that have been agreed
to be worked out with the Mitchells on drainage and soils movement. Cunningham
said the size of the house was of concern because of the views from the Alps 550
building. She said that if there were a change in ownership on this property there
would not be the mutual agreements and the Alps owners would have more
concerns. Cynthia Mitchell responded that the only change in ownership would be
the grandchildren and great-grandchildren and she did not think there would be a
change in the association with the Aspen Alps. She stated that the family cared
about the neighborhood and were willing to cooperate in all areas. The applicant
representative, Alan Richman, stated that this was a statement made by the
applicant in the context of the public record. Bendon noted that staging could not
be on the road and the road would remain open.
Richman requested guidance from P&Z regarding this unique property and the
redevelopment of it with consideration to the design guidelines.
Mooney asked that the drainage problems be brought forward for mitigation at this
point. Hammond responded that the typical solution would be dry wells, noting
that there may be difficulties with ground water but they have had good designs,
which did not discharge water into the soil but rather into a storm tank to be
drained to surface after the storm peak had passed. Julie Ann Woods commented
that the engineering department has reviewed the report and would have forwarded
any concerns.
Bendon noted changes in the conditions. Mooney voiced concerns with outdoor
lighting. Tabasinske responded that he would follow the lighting code. Hunt noted
that the building was too large for the lot. Mooney said the bulk of the house was
below grade. Haneman noted that the scenic plane should be considered. Tim
Semrau left at 7:15 p.m.
MOTION: Tim Mooney moved to approve the 8040 Greenline Review,
the variance to the conservation zone district, demolition requirements
and the waiver of the garage setback requirements of the Residential
Design Standards for the Mitchell Residence at 550 Aspen Alps Road,
with the conditions recommended in the Community Development
7
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 03, 1999
Memo dated August 3, 1999 with the additions and corrections
discussed. Roger Haneman second. Roll call vote: Tygre, no; Buettow,
no; Mooney, yes; Erickson, no; Blaich, yes; Haneman, yes; Hunt, no.
DENIED 4-3.
Erickson noted that the applicant had to prove a hardship or a practical difficulty in
order to be granted a variance; he said that he did not see a minimum variance but
rather a maximum variance. He requested that the applicant re-design to have a
smaller building. He said that there was no evidence of a report for the drainage
and the soil disturbance and it needed to be researched. He said that the house was
maximized on the lot. He complimented the amount of work that had been done
for the project. Tygre agreed with Erickson's findings. Hunt said that he basically
agreed with Tygre and Erickson. Hoefer noted that since it was deemed denied, the
applicant could re-design.
MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to redirect and continue action to
October 19, 1999. Ron Erickson second. APPROVED 7-0.
MOTION: Steven Buettow moved to extend the meeting to 7:30 p.m.
Tim Mooney second. APPROVED 6-1.
PUBLIC HEARING:
LAND USE CODE DEFINITIONS
Bob Blaich opened the Land Use Public Hearing. Sarah Oates explained that the
sign definition was extremely broad and included store window displays. Staff
voiced concern for televisions, computer monitors, neon, strip or rope lighting and
motion lights. There was a special provision in the code permitting holiday
lighting.
MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to extend the meeting to 7:30 p.m.
Tim Mooney second. APPROVED 6-1.
Herb Klein, attorney, stated that he represented Charles Cunniffe Architects. He
said there was a complaint about the color transparencies of houses that he built,
which were framed and backlit in the office window. Klein said that the suggested
language was very good but requested embellishment on the word "merchandise"
because some business provide services and he said that he wasn't sure that the
photos of houses would be considered merchandise. He did not want to get hung
up on the language by not adding services as part of the definition of
"merchandise". Blaich said that what Charles was doing was like realtors
windows.
8
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 03, 1999
Phil Rothblum asked if this affected retail stores nighttime window displays. Julie
Ann Woods said that would be under window displays and not under the sign code.
Roger Hunt commented that backlit artwork was not his worry but rather how
distinctions were made on backlit signs, that was important. Oates stated that the
neon signs would still be regulated.
MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to recommend City Council adopt the
changes to Sections 26.104.100 "Definitions" and 26.510 "Signs" finding
that the criteria have been met with the language amended as stated.
Ron Erickson second. APPROVED 6-0.
Meeting adjourned 7:55 p.m.
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
9