HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20010619ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION June 19, 2001
~VU~t~TES .................................................................................................................................................................... 2
DECLAaATION Or CONFLICT Or ~TEREST ................................................................................................. 2
COMMISSIONER, STAFF & PUBLIC COMMENTS .............................. 2 ............................................................ 2
HISTORIC LOT SPLIT CODE AMENDMENT ..................................................................................................... 3
707 W. NORTH STREET DRAC VARIANCE AND SPECIAL REVIEW ......................................................... 4
MOUNTAIN CHALET PUD ..................................................................................................................................... 5
ASPEN ALPS PUD, REZONING .............................................................................................................................. 8
BARBEE PUD AMENDMENT .............................................................................................................................. 10
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION June 19, 2001
Bob Blaich opened the regular Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission meeting at
4:30 with Roger Haneman, Ron Erickson, Steven Buettow and Jasmine Tygre
present. Eric Cohen was excused. Staff in attendance: Joyce Ohlson, Fred Jarman, '
Amy Guthrie, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk.
MINUTES
MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to approve the minutes of June 12,
2001. Jasmine Tygre seconded. APPROVED 5-0.
DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
None.
COMMISSIONER, STAFF & PUBLIC COMMENTS
Ron Erickson asked about the Cooper Avenue signs. Joyce Ohlson replied that
James Lindt was following up on those signs.
Erickson stated that the open space with the Caribou doors knocked him dpwn; he
asked if the owner had been notified about the enclosed open space violation.
Ohlson responded that a letter had been written to the owner; Amy Guthrie stated
that there was a canopy approved by HPC for the summer but was not permanent:
Bob Blaich said that he was away when the house size caps came up and was
surprised by Julie Anne's quotes in the newspapers that the house size wasn't
working.. Blaich noted that everyone was 100% for it and now there were
problems. Joyce Ohlson responded that the quotes were reflective of the reality of
further investigation into the code; when the project was initiated then tested to the
best of their ability from real case analysis on how the code would affect
structures, what the buildings would look like if volume were taken away. Ohlson
stated that there was no clear way to determine the volumetric calculations.
Ohlson said that a few architects gave analysis; the ordinance called for review
within a year. City Council requested a work session; staff would provide the
problems that exist today and the new council would direct staff on problem areas.
Blaich noted that there were open meetings, which seem to be a political issue at
this point.
Ohlson commented that next Tuesday was that work session regarding the floor
area with the council which conflicted with the P&Z meeting that same night.
Blaich noted that was the second meeting in a row that P&Z could not attend with
council.
Amy Guthrie said that there was a lecture Thursday night at the ISIS.
2
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION June 19, 2001
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
HISTORIC LOT SPLIT CODE AMENDMENT
Bob Blaich opened the public hearing on the Historic Lot Split Code Amendment.
Amy Guthrie stated that the commission asked for the number of properties that
would be affected by this code amendment.
Guthrie stated that this particular lot split could possibly go through a PUD process
(in light of the in-fill program) but then they would have to go through subdivision.
Guthrie said that PUD would not really be appropriate for this property; it was
simply a lot split without any new development rights, no added fioor area added
or different uses proposed.
Pen-y Harvey, representative for the applicant, the MacDonalds; stated that this
property by right could be condominiumized. Harvey said that the goal was for the
MacDonalds to keep the carriage house as their residence as a fee simple property.
Guthrie stated that the current historic lot split was only available in residential
areas; the amendment was to bring the historic lot split to the Office Zone District.
Ron Erickson stated that this was a code amendment for one property and wanted
to know the ramifications for other properties in this zone dis~ct. Joyce Ohlson
stated that this might not be the easiest for the applicant. Guthrie said that the lot
split would benefit the community. The code amendment would allow the property
a lot split to be subdivided through the proper process. Erickson asked about the
impacts on size, density and what would be built on the other side of the historic
structures. Guthrie replied that the historic structures would be protected with a lot
split; the monster additions would not be allowed.
No public comments.
MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to adopt P&Z Resolution #22. series
2001, finding the review standards have been met for the Historic Lot
Split Code Amendment. Jasmine Tygre seconded. Roll call vote:
Haneman, yes; Buettow, yes; Tygre, yes; Erickson, yes; Blaich, yes.
APPROVED 5-0.
Discussion: Tygre stated that her concern was the possible affects on other
properties and as Ron said the proposed code amendment for the benefit of one
property could open the doo~s for problems, but staffdid a good job with the
standards and which properties could be affected. Tygre agreed with the staff
findings of the other possible avenues for this property and other properties under
these criteria would not be as effective.
3
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION June 19, 2001
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (06/12/01):
707 W. NORTH STREET DRAC VARIANCE AND SPECIAL REVIEW
Bob Blaich opened the public hearing on 707 North Street. James Lindt stated that
this was a continued the hearing from June 12, 2001 due to a lack of P&Z quorum.
Lindt said that the request was to vary the ADU Design Standards in this zone
district to allow an ADU to be built above the garage on the rear of the lot to a
height of 21 feet. Staff felt the unit would be mom livable with more light and
ventilation located above the garage rather than below it or under the house. Lindt
stated that the criteria were met.
Lindt said this was a comer lot; there was a request for a variance from the build to
line standards. There was a row of mature spruce trees that would not be removed
because of their value to the community; staff found it almost impossible for the
applicant to meet the build to lines standards on both street facing sides of the
property. The standard for a comer lot was that that 60% of the front and side of
the house be within 5 feet of the minimum required setback. Staff recommends
approval of the variance because of site constraints.
Alan Richman said that he was the representative for Jeffrey and Molly Gorsuch;
he introduced Mike Hoffrnan, the attorney and Tim Koehoe, the builder. Richman
said that this would be Jeff and Molly's residence and that they wanted to preserve
the trees. Richman explained the ADU placed above the gar_age was on the back of
the lot; there was a 12-foot height limitation on the alley and that was the reason
for the variance request.
Ron Erickson asked the height of the garage with the ADU and the house. Koehoe
replied that the house was 25 feet to the midpoint, 34 feet to the peak of the
chimney cap. Erickson asked if they thought about sinking the garage 3 feet.
Koehoe responded that lowering the garage with the proximity to the alley could
create a height-centering problem.
Jim Markalunas, public, requested that when a hearing was postponed, there
should be another notice on the site because everyone did not look in the paper.
Markalunas asked about the spruce trees being retained. He gave the history of the
site when it was the Iselin House. Lindt said that the building would be setback 10
feet from the property line. Richman noted that there was one tree that had to be
removed because it was diseased. Markalunas said that he did not have any other
problems with the project.
Erickson stated that saving the trees was a good reason to grant the variance.
Erickson stated that this was a very nice ADU with a fireplace but the chinmey of
4
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION June 19, 2001
29 feet was not something he felt necessary. Etickson stated that he applauded that
the applicant for placing the ADU above the garage, although he doubted that it
would ever be used as an ADU.
Roger Haneman asked why the code promoted accessory buildings on the front
two-thirds of the property. Joyce Oh/son replied that standard was on the list for
code amendments. Lindt said that the In-fill project had this in the future code
amendments, to be removed. Ohlson said it was to step back buildings from the
alley and the front of the building.
Mike Hoffman said that the chimney would not affect the neighbors view. Btalch
stated that ADU was deed-restricted and that the chimney was an architectural
affect. The commissioners, except for Haneman, requested that the chimney above
the Accessory Dwelling Unit roofline be removed but there could be a vent for the
fireplace.
MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to approve Resolution #23, series 2001,
for a variance for the build-to-lines standard of the Residential Design
Standards for the proposed single-family residence at 707 W. North
Street, Aspen, Colorado, with the criteria have been met and to approve
Resolution #24, series 2001 approving a special review to vary the
Accessory Dwelling Unit Residential Design Standards to allow
applicant to construct an ADU above the garage to a height limit of 21
feet on the rear one-third of the parcel at 7070 W. North Street with the
amendment that no chimney be placed above the approved height.
Jasmine Tygre seconded. Roll call vote: Buettow, yes; Haneman, yes;
Tygre, yes; Erickson, yes; Blaich, yes. APPROVED 5-0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
MOUNTAIN CHALET PUD
Bob Blaich opened the public heating for the Mountain Chalet PUD. Fred Jarman
said that the proof of notice was provided. This was a request for land use
approval for a lodge to expand in the City of Aspen under the lodge Preservation
Program (LP). Jarman stated there were 4 parts to the request; Rezoning, Minor
PUD, GMQS Exemption and Mountain View Plane Review.
Jarman stated that the expansion was 3 phases, the 1 s, adding the 4th floor to the
middle section containing 8 lodge rooms and a 5th flOor lounge. The 2na phase
proposed to demolish the eastern wing and be replaced with a building to meet the
4th
floor with the affordable housing on the bottom. Phase 3 was an internal
reconfiguration of the lodge common areas and fixing the Durant sidewalk. There
5
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION June 19, 2001
were currently 51 lodge units and wanted to expand to 67 plus the addition of 5
affordable housing units. The housing board gave a unanimous vote for the
affordable units because they were doubling what was required for employee
mitigation.
Jarman stated that they were keeping the same footprint and the staff report had the
numbers backwards. The'actual heights were 38 feet to the ridge and in the overall
project to the ridge was 51 feet, still lower than the St. Regis.
Jarman said that there was no additional parking provided for the 5 AH units; there
were certain transportation mitigation factors such as the current sub-grade 35
space-parking garage, free bus passes to employee, covered and secure bicycle
storage and to provide a bike fleet. Last year the Mountain Chalet gave out 9
residential parking passes in a year. Jarman said that there were 32 LP allotments
and this project would use 16 of those allotments.
Mitch Haas, planner for the project, introduced Stan Haingas the Mountain Chalet
Manager, Ralph Melville the owner, Ollie Joharmassen the architect. Haas said
that they were satisfied with the staff memo and conditions. Haas stated that the
existing solar panel would be taken down and replaced (either as is or an updated _
solar panel) in the center of the building in back facing the St. Regis and provide
better solar access. There was nowhere to place additional parking because the
footprint was built out; there were 37 existing on-site space including the ones off
the alley. They were directly across Ruby Park with free-shfittles, within one block
of the commercial core and skiing, bus passes and a bicycle fleet; they felt the
parking was adequate since the current garage was hardly ever to capacity. Haas
asked that the 5 spaces designated employee parking in the conditions be taken out
or at least reduced to 3 spaces or at least be able to be used for lodge guests. Haas
stated that the project was consistent with the LP, AACP, and In-fill goals. This
was a perfect in-fill site and this would still be lower than the St. Regis.
Ollie Johannassen stated that the architecture would be improved with new stucco;
he said that everything else seemed to be covered. Ralph Melville said that it was
only 3 stories on Dean Street and 4 on Durant; said that the right section was
currently 4 stories.
Roger Haneman asked when the parking garage was full. Ralph Melville replied
that the 2nd and last week in May. Haneman stated that was probably tied in with
conferences at the St. Regis. Stan Halngas said that one was with fish and wildlife _
from mostly Colorado people that was held at the Mountain Chalet; the other times
that the garage was full was the 4~ of July.
6
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION June 19, 2001
Erickson asked if the Kitzbuhl, off site, met the employee housing for Phase 1.
Jarman replied that it did. Erickson complemented the applicant for housing
employees on a temporary basis. Melville stated that they bought the Kitzbuhl
some 15 years ago for employee housing; about ½ were their own employees and
the others were employees of town. Erickson asked if limo service was
considered. Melville said they had not. Haingas said that there was a limo
company that they contracted with that used one of the spaces in the back. Haas
stated that taxi service existed and with the hassle of owning, operating, parking
and insuring a van that they did not want to get into all of that with the proximity
of town.
Haneman voiced concern for summertime parking with 67 rooms and 37 parking
spaces. Haingas responded that many of their guests were return visitors.
Haneman stated concern because the other projects in the area had parking
problems and the Grand Aspen had to mitigate for their parking. Haingas stated
that when they were at 80% or above maybe ½ of the garage was full. The
applicant did not want to encourage employees to have cars; therefore they did not
want to provide more employee spaces.
No public comments.
Erickson applauded the design for the project. Erickson stated that he agreed with
Haas on the employee parking because of the housing mitigation; for guests the
maybe adding a voucher system for limos and taxis. Melville said that most of the
guests did not mind paying for the taxis from the airport. Erickson stated that a
variance was a land use decision issue to waive the parking requirement. Erickson
asked for the elimination of condition #7, which was for the employee housing
parking. The Commission agreed that parking should be open for all lodge guests.
Haneman stated that he liked the project, but was concerned about the parking and
wanted to see something for parking mitigation.
Steven Buettow questioned the north elevations from Wagner Park. Melville
replied that the perspective places the middle of the Park the rooms may project up.
Haas stated that there were elevations from Wagner Park, but no one seemed to
know from where in the park.
Jasmine Tygre stated that the people that were return visitors to the Mountain
Chalet did not bring their cars but asked for vouchers to be made available as part
of the parking mitigation. Erickson asked to add a condition for parking
7
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION June 19, 2001
mitigation in the form of a courtesy van or voucher system. Haingas requested that
condition could be in place after Phase 2 was completed. The commission
discussed the mitigation and agreed with a report back to community development
on the parking mitigation. The commission concurred that they were please to see
this type of project
MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to approve P&Z Resolution #25, series
2001, the provision of 16 Lodge Preservation allotments and an
exemption for'the Wheeler Opera View Plane and recommend City
Council for Rezoning, Minor Planned Unit Development and GMQS
Exemption for Affordable Housing and Lodge Preservation for the
Mountain Chalet with the conditions as amended and including the
parking mitigation. Jasmine seconded. Roll call vote: Haneman, yes;
Buettow, yes; Tygre, yes; Erickson, yes; Blaich, yes. APPROVED 5-0.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (06/12/01):
ASPEN ALPS PUD, REZONING
Bob Blaich opened the public hearing for the Aspen Alps PUD. Fred Jarman
provided copies of emails and letters for the public record. The request was for Lot
2B rezoning, consolidated PUD, GMQS, Subdivision and Residential Design
Standards Variances.
Jarman stated that Lot 2B would be redeveloped'with the tennis courts removed,
excavated out to construct a 2 level 69 space garage then to replace the tennis
courts in the same location with landscape and re-vegetation. There would 3
affordable housing units on the top level of the garage on one end. Jarman
illustrated the entrances utilizing elevation drawings and maps. This would be a
multi-family building that required rezoning, subdivision, GMQS and some
variances. Jarman explained that the Aspen Alps was a lodge with a residential
component; he provided the history of the Alps with the planning department and
reason for rezoning the entire parcel.
Jarman stated that the applicant requested variances from secondary mass, one
story element and covered entry. Jarman stated that since there was no primary
mass, secondary mass was moot. The covered entry was again not applicable
because there were no street facing entrances and the same with the one story
element.
Staff felt this proposal brought the property back into conforming with the land use
code and the rezoning was a logical step that made sense. Jarman stated that this
was a good example of a private sector developer bringing in affordable housing
8
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION June 19, 2001
umts and not relying on the city or another public entity to provide housing. The
garage would help to bring more parking to the area with a very creative use of
topography with minimal impacts. Staff recommended approval.
Alan Richman, planner for the applicant, introduced Pam Curmingham, general
manager for the Aspen Alps, Nick McGrath, attorney, and Nasser Sadeghi, project
architect. Richman noted that there were many meetings with neighbors to work
with them and the applicant did not have any issues with the conditional of
approval. Richman described the building of the Alps over the years without a
master plan and the surrounding properties. Richman stated that some Aspen Alps
owners leave their cars and will be stored in the new facility, which was not right
in front of the unit. The laundry and maintenance facilities would be placed in this
structure but would not add any additional employees.
Richman stated that the landscape plan included keeping the environment friendly
area looking the same and trying to preserve as many trees as possible consulting
with the city forester. Richman stated that there would be a screen of spruce trees.
Dan Oneig, public, requested trees placed in the area that Alan was speaking about
on Ute. Oneig stated support for the project.
Erickson asked where the excavation mute was located. Cunningham answered
that it was on Aspen Alps Road. Erickson asked if the applicant was willing to
have the entire Alps rezoned LTR. Cunningham answered in the affirmative.
George Gleason, public, stated that Mary Gleason's email questioned the existing
soils containing mining waste and contaminates: Mr. Gleason asked about the
health concerns when the soil was moved; it was a mine dump when the Gleason's
bought their neighboring property in 1960. He asked if the soil was contaminated.
Ms. Cunningham responded that she met with Lee Cassin from Environmental
Health and Patti Clapper who was involved in the Smuggler site. Ms Curmingham
stated that there were performance standards that pertained to this excavation that
could be met. There was a dust mitigation plan in the packet.
Bob Blaich excused himself at 7 pm.
MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to extend the meeting by 15 minutes.
Steven Buettow seconded. APPROVED 4-0.
9
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION June 19, 2001
Erickson asked if condition #15 could be expanded to include the fugitive dust
control plan. George Gleason asked for soils samples. Ohlson replied that the soil
sampling was a requirement from Engineering and Building Permit standards.
Richman noted that conditions #6 and #12 required a soil report and soils
conditions report. Richman stated that Lot 2A would remain the same as it was at
the present time. Erickson stated that he was in favor of this plan with the
conditions.
MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to approve P&Z Resolution #26, series
2001, and recommend City Council approve the application for the
Aspen Alps Condominium Association for a consolidated Planned Unit
Development, Rezoning to the LTR zone district, Subdivision
Amendment, Growth Management System Quota Exemption, and
approving variances from the Residential Design Standards for Lot 2B
of the Moses Lot Split with the conditions. Roger Haneman seconded.
Roil call vote: Buettow, yes; Haneman, yes; Erickson, yes; Tygre, yes.
APPROVED 4-0.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
BARBEE PUD AMENDMENT
Jasmine opened the public hearing and requested continuation to a date certain.
MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to continue the Barbee PUD
Amendment Public Hearing until June 26, 2001. Steven Buettow
seconded. APPROVED 4-0.
Meeting adjourned 7:25 p.m.
cki~e ~'th'~City C1 erk
10