Loading...
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