Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20010605ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION June 5, 2001 COMMISSIONER, STAFF & PUBLIC COMMENTS .......................................................................................... 1 MINUTES .................................................................................................................................................................... 1 DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST .................................................................................................. 1 413 W. HOPKINS DRAC VARIANCE - SECONDARY MASS ........................................................................... 2 $15 GILLESPIE - LANDMARK DESIGNATION ................................................................................................. 4 640 NORTH THIRD - LANDMARK DESIGNATION .......................................................................................... 4 419 EAST HYMAN - LANDMARK DESIGNATION ........................................................................................... $ 629 WEST SMUGGLER - LANDMARK DESIGNATION ........................................................... ~ ....................... $ HISTORIC LOT SPLIT CODE AMENDMENT .................................................................................................... (~ 8 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION June 5, 2001 Robert Blaich, Chair, opened the meeting at 4:35 p.m. Commissioners Ron Erickson, Steven Buettow, Jasmine Tygre and Robert Blaich were present. Roger Haneman and Eric Cohen were excused. Staff in attendance were: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Amy Guthrie, Joyce Ohlson, Fred Jarman, Stephen Clay, Community Development and Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMISSIONER, STAFF & PUBLIC COMMENTS Ron Erickson requested that a copy of the minutes on the Grand Aspen Hotel be provided to Sunny Vann and to include the minutes in the final submission. Jackie Lothian responded that Sunny has already received a copy of the minutes. Erickson noted that the work session on the Aspen Mountain PUD was cancelled and not rescheduled. Bob Blaich noted that an election for the chair should be held in June, since 2 of the regular members were not in attendance tonight, they would hold the P&Z chair election at the next meeting. Lothian said that after the new Council was seated, they would set up interviews for the board appointments. Joyce Ohlson introduced Stephen Clay, the new city planner. Ohlson distributed the Burlingame summary from the Task Force COWOP Team, which were the development guidelines to be presented to Council on June 12th. Ohlson stated that there were 2 P&Z scheduled public hearing also for June 12th. Blaich polled the commissioners for attendance of the meeting on the 12th and only 2 members would be present. Blaich noted that the Burlingame project was too important to be scheduled at the same time that a P&Z special meeting was scheduled. Blaich stated concern for some potential problems with the 2 P&Z members not being able to attend that Burlingame COWOP meeting; he requested that some representation from P&Z be pursued. Ohlson said that there was a Cemetery Lane work session planned for the 14th of June. Erickson stated that he was the only one who could make the meeting on the 14th. MINUTES MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to approve the minutes from May 15, 2001, May 1, 2001, April 17, 2001 and April 4, 2001. Jasmine Tygre second. APPROVED 4-0. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST None were disclosed. ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION June 5, 2001 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: 413 W. HOPKINS DRAC VARIANCE - SECONDARY MASS Bob Blaich opened the continued public hearing. David Hoefer stated that the notice was provided and the commission could proceed. Fred Jarman stated that this was a Design Appeals Review Hearing, which requested variances for the single family home to be built at 413 West Hopkins. Sarman stated that the variances were for non-orthogonal windows and secondary mass; staff requested denial of the variances. Jarman explained the non-orthogonal windows placements on the drawings. Jarman said that the interpretation of secondary mass was always a subordinate linking element (the west elevation in this case) and indicated the garage separation from the first level and the master bedroom on the second level and the ADU on the sub-grade level. Staff found that this was a flat butdable lot and that ali the design standards could be met without the variances. Augie Reno, architect, stated that the variance request for the two non-orthogonal windows was dropped. He illustrated the changes with drawings and needed no variance for the windows. Reno said that the secondary mass key words were linked to by subordinate element. He said that they complied to this standard because the submission related with the connecting link was sitting back from both of the other planes and the building was not one large mass itself. Reno utilized a model and pointed out the west elevation of the building where th.e dedicated alley would be put in. The front two-story mass was broken up by horizontal differences in planes. The secondary mass was a master bedroom with a terrace off of it. Reno provided photographs of the neighborhood surrounding this building; he noted that this was the second smallest building on the street. Reno said that if the second-story were taken away then that 400 square feet would have to be moved somewhere else on the lot to utilize the FAR. Joyce Ohlson stated that what this means with the intent of the secondary mass for the residential design standard actual is; does the development proposal constitute and create as it stands and looks an actually secondary mass. Ohlson said does it look as if there are two components to the structure and when there is a two-story mass. Reno stated that there was a clear link to the masses, which met the standard. 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION June 5, 2001 Ron Erickson asked how large the lot was and how large the house was. Reno replied that the lot was 75' x 100' and the FAR was 3400-3500 square feet, below the allotted FAR by 57 square feet. Erickson asked for a name for the style of architecture. Reno replied that it leaned towards the European Tyrolean look. Blaich noted that it was compatible with the neighborhood because it was very eclectic. He said the small cottage neighbors would be overpowered but he asked for how long would they actually would be there or if they were protected. Blaich stated that they would probably become the secondary element of a big house in the future. Blaich asked Reno why he designed projects with elements that would be challenged. Reno replied that he knew why the non-orthogonal window standard was placed in the code but he felt that scale was the important aspect. No public comments. Erickson said that from the roof plan drawing (A2-4) it appeared that the secondary mass was visible and subordinate from the street view. Buettow said that from the north elevation, the front of the house had the one story elevation to the left, which helped break down the mass of the house. Tygre stated that she disagreed and did not see a secondary mass effectively and that the 10 foot length wasg the same height. Tygre said that she did not feel that it was a more effective way of addressing the standard in question. Tygre stated that she did not always agree with the standards included in Ordinance 30, but also said that she did not see where this application fulfills any of the 3 criteria to allow a variance to be granted. Blaich said that from a practical point of view this house wOuld not have an effect aesthetically or an effect on the environment. Blaich noted that there needed to be clarification on the issues in Ordinance 30. MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to approve the requested variances of the Residential Design Standard for secondary mass for the Young Residence, 413 West Hopkins Avenue subject to the conditions listed in P&Z Resolution #01-18 finding the proposed design represents a more effective manner to address the particular design issues in which the standards were intended. Steven Buettow second. Roll call vote: Tygre, no; Buettow, yes; Erickson, yes; Blaich, yes. APPROVED 3-1. The commission thanked the applicant for the beautiful model. 3 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION June 5, 2001 CONTINUED PUBLIC HE--G: 515 GILLESPIE - LANDMARK DESIGNATION Bob Blaich opened the continued public hearing on 515 Gillespie. Fred Jarman provided the public notice on May 1,2001. Jarman noted that the HPC approved the Historic Landmark Designation and the process was to go through P&Z next and then onto City Council. Jarman explained that this was a 2-story residence situated on a 9,210 square foot lot that was built approximately in 1887. The house was currently on the historic sites and structures inventory; it was originally located on 100 West Hopkins and moved in 1971 to the current location. Staff stated that it met 3 of the 5 criteria: architectural importance, neighborhood importance and community importance. Jarman stated that the house' was very interesting and maintained the ~shape plane with the gable roof and classic open front porch with original turned-post detail.. No public comments. Randall Bone, representative for the owners, stated that the Becks have owned the property since it was built and that Neil Beck was bom in this house. MOTION: Jasmine Tygre moved to approve P&Z Resolution #19, series 2001 recommending approval to City Council for historic landmark designation for the property located at 515 West Gillespie Avenue, with the conditions stated. Ron Erickson second. Roll call vote: Buettow, yes; Erickson, yes; Tygre, yes; Blaich, yes. APPROVED 4-0. The commission agreed that this was a commendable property with the family history and community value. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: 640 NORTH THIRD - LANDMARK DESIGNATION Bob Blaich opened the continued public hearing on 640 North Third. Amy Guthrie provided the public notice at the May 1,2001 meeting. Guthrie stated that this property had a number of alterations and was fairly unique with a small one-story piece on the front with a taller 1½-story section behind it. Janver Derrington, architect, provided photos ofthe neighborhood with the different houses. Jim Daggs, the owner, was present to answer any questions. 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION June 5, 2001 No public comments. MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to recommend City Council approve landmark designation for 640 North Third, P&Z Resolution #01-20, finding that conditions B, D and E have been met. Jasmine Tygre second. Roll call vote: Buettow, yes; Tygre, yes; Erickson, yes; Blacih, yes. APPROVED 4-0. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: 419 EAST HYMAN - LANDMARK DESIGNATION Bob Blaich opened the continued hearing on 419 East Hyman. Amy Guthrie provided the public notice. Guthrie commented that this was the Paragon Building on the Hyman Avenue mall and one of the most significant buildings left in the downtown area. Guthrie said that 4 of the standards must be met for landmark designation. Guthrie noted that the building was associated with two important characters from the silver mining period, Henry P. Cowenhoven and D.R.C. Brown. The building has recently undergone a successful restoration process and the historic billboard on the west side of the building was being restored. No public comments. MOTION: Jasmine Tygre moved to approve P&Z Resolution #21, series 2001 finding criteria A, B, D and E have been met and to recommend City Council approve landmark designation for the Paragon Building, 419 East Hyman Avenue. Ron Erickson second. Roll call vote: Buettow, yes; Erickson, yes; Tygre, yes; Blaich, yes. APPROVED 4-0. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: 629 WEST SMUGGLER- LANDMARK DESIGNATION Bob Blaich opened the continued hearing from April 17, 200 I. MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to continue the public hearing on 629 Smuggler to July 10, 2001. Jasmine Tygre second. APPROVED 4-0. ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION June 5, 2001 PUBLIC I-IE~G: HISTORIC LOT SPLIT CODE AMENDMENT Bob Blaich opened the public hearing. Amy Guthrie explained that the historic lot split program has been successful and it allowed a different form of ownership; it allowed a fee simple lot split and eliminated a condominization. The application was to extend the same program to the office zone district. Bob Starodoj, representative for the applicant, Scott and Caroline MacDonald was present. Guthrie asked for feedback from the commission. Guthrie said that there were no long-term impacts on the community. Erickson stated that there were many discussions underway with the downtown office zone district and some of those included uses and some regarding size. Erickson stated that the feeling was to do away with residential uses on the first floor inthe downtown core area or new single-family residences on Main Street. Erickson stated the area of discussion should extend to the In-fill committee. Erickson asked how many other properties would this code amendment affect. Guthrie answered that there were 4 or 5 properties on Main Street. Guthrie said that the lost split program would allow for split uses. Starodoj stated that the MacDonald's intent was to keep the carriage house and sell off the big house. Erickson said that the Ir~fill program was in favor of the lot splits. Jasmine Tygre stated that the way the market was at this moment, the mixed use would not be affected. Tygre said that she was not comfortable with a code amendment for one property because it will affect other properties, even though it may only be 5 or 6 properties. Tygre asked if there was another venue other than a code amendment to process this application. Erickson asked why the applicant couldn't just go through a lot split. Guthrie answered that 12,000 square feet was needed for the lot split and the applicant only had 9,000 square feet. Ohlson noted that there was no site plans for this particular property and staff was looking at the implications for all of those 5 properties. Starodoj asked ifJasmine's concern was a dictation of the usage or what the market determined as the usage. Guthrie stated that the applicant could condominize the lots but they would prefer fee simple. Blaich agreed with Jasmine on a code change for one project, which would affect other properties. Erickson noted that there was a code amendment for one project (Explore Booksellers) that affected other properties. Erickson said that a lot split could go through a lot split on the basis of a hardship for a variance. Ohlson said that the applicantion could be continued but it would have to be re-noticed. Guthrie said that the R-6 zone district across the alley could do a lot split at 9,000 square feet because it was zoned residential. Blaich invited Staradoj to an In-fill Committee meeting. 6 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION June 5, 2001 MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to continue the public hearing on the Historic Lot Split Code Amendment to June 19, 2001. Jasmine Tygre second. APPROVED 4-0. Erickson asked about Real Estate signs in the public rightof-way and enforcement. Blaich noted that security signs were being changed to smaller and more appropriate places. Mee,ting adjourned. /~ckie Lothi~-n,tDeputy City Clerk 7