HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20020319ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes - March 19, 2002
COMMISSIONER, STAFF and PUBLIC COMMENTS .i ...................................... 2
MINUTES ................................................................................................................. 2
DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ................................................... 3
501 SNEAKY LANE STREAM MARGIN REVIEW ............................................. 3
775 and 777 CEMETERY LANE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD
VARIANCES ................................................... ; ........................................................ 4
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes - March 19~ 2002
Jasmine Tygre, chairperson, opened the regular P&Z meeting at 4:35 with Bert
Myrin, Eric Cohen, Ron Erickson and Ruth Kruger present. Roger Haneman and
Steven Buettow were excused. Staffin attendance: James Lindt, Fred Jarman,
Chris Bendon, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk.
COMMISSIONER~ STAFF and PUBLIC COMMENTS
Ron Erickson stated that the article in the paper about the new restaurant at the golf
course was more than an accessory use and more o£a destination restaurant.
Erickson stated that the restaurant was to be an accessory use and not provide
competition to the restaurants in town. Jasmine Tygre asked Fred Jarman how
Community Development would handle thisk Fred Jarman answered that he would
forward this onto Joyce Ohlson. Eric Cohen asked for a copy of the agreement or
final Ordinance on the restaurant use.
Bert Myrin asked staff about the impacts of"buy-downs" taking free-market
property and deed-restricting that property AH. Myrin said that he spoke to TOny
Hershey about the idea with the possibility of deed restricting some free-market
homes to RO (Resident Occupancy), whiCh would allOw the properties to be
preserved for the locals. Tygre stated that this has been discussed for quite some
time and there were always difficulties in the past. Erickson inquired as to any tax
adVantages. Myrin replied that there would possibly be tax advantages and it could
enable estate planning to pass the property down to their children.
Tygre said that the resolution for the approval for the Little Red Ski Hans did not
contain the discussion by the commission regarding the dimensional concerns to be
reviewed by HPC. Tygre stated that the commisSioners concerns were not attached
to the P&Z Resolution. James Lindt responded that the Commission's concerns
were passed along in a memo to HPC and the review has not gone to Council yet.
Jarman said that the HPC memo Would support HPC with respeCt to architectural
review; that memo has yet to go on to City Council with the P&Z recommendation
to HPC.
Jarman noted the fractional fee ownership work session with Alan Richman on
Tuesday, March 26t~.
Chris Bendon noted the Obermeyer project was determined for the COWOP
review process. Ruth and Roger were the designated P&Z Commissioners for this
project; Bert expressed interest in also attending.
MINUTES
Ron Erickson inquired about the change in the minutes format and requested that
they be changed back to the old format.
2
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes - March 19, 2002
MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to approve the March 5, 2002 minutes
amended to the old format. Eric Cohen seconded. APPROVED 5-0.
DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
None.
PUBLIC MEETING:
501 SNEAKY LANE STREAM MARGIN REVIEW
Jasmine Tygre opened the public meeting for the 501 Sneaky Lane Stream Margin
Review. James Lindt explained that proof0fnotice was not needed.
Lindt stated that the applicant proposed a bedroom and dining room addition; the
property was within 100 feet of the high water line of Castle Creek therefore must
obtain Stream Margin Review for any further development on the parcel. There
were 2 previous Stream Margin Reviews on this property, one in the early 1980's
for the construction of the single-family residence and the other in the early 1990's
for a 220 square foot addition to the house. Lindt noted that the City Engineer
concluded the top of slope at a prior time; it coincides with the 100-year flood
plane as shown on the map. The minimum setback was 15 feet and the applicant
proposed a 23-foot setback at the closest point. The proposal would not remove
any trees from the property; the proposal met the conditions with the following
change to condition #1 adding the language within lO feet of the building envelope
the tree drip lines needed to be fenced.
Alan Richman, representative for applicant, stated that the any tree within 10 feet
of the construction would be fenced but not all the trees on the property. Richman
said that condition #4 was missing a few words. Lindt replied that the wording
was the applicant shall submit an outdoor lighting plan and exterior lighting cut
sheets to demonstrate compliance with the city of Aspen lighting ordinance at the
time of building permit. Richman stated that the applicant would comply with the
conditions set forth and said that they met all of the standards. Richman introduce
the owner, Michael Werner and Dick Fallin the architect.
Ron Erickson asked why the building envelope was so large regarding condition
#3. Richman replied that the way that the county treated building envelopes was to
include all of the area surrounding the house that would be disturbed by the
construction. Lindt stated that the proposed condition responded to the review
criteria requiring the applicant record a plat with the building envelope shown.
Lindt stated that in the city the setbacks supercede the building envelope; the
setbacks were more restrictive.
No public comments.
3
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION 2 Minutes - March 19, 2002
MOTION: Bert Myrin moved to approve P&Z Resolution #11, series
2002, approving a Stream Margin Review for the additions to the
existing residence of up to 836 square feet for the addition of a bedroom
and a dining room at 501 Sneaky Lane as amended with conditions #1
and #4 during this review. Ron Erickson seconded. Roll call Vote:
Kruger, yes; Cohen, yes; Myrin, yes; Erickson, yes; Tygre, yes.
APPROVED 5-0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
775 and 777 CEMETERY LANE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARI)
VARIANCES
Jasmine Tygre opened the public heating for 775 and 777 Cemetery Lane
Residential Design Standard variances for the garage door placement. James Lindt
provided the proof of notice for DRAC.
Lindt introduced the applicants Chet Winchester and Joachim Weimann and the
architect Gretchen Greenwood. Lindt stated that the variance requests were for the
residential design standards that required garage doors to be perpendicular to the
street if the garages were to be constructed forward of the residences and a
variance for single stall garage doors to be placed on a residence. The proposal
requested double stall garage doors that faced the street on garages that were
forward of the duplex. Staff felt that the review criteria had not been met; the
garage door placement variances were not necessary for reasons of fairness related
to unusual site constraints. Lindt noted that the applicant's design was driving the
need for the variance request; other duplexes in the area have been constructed to
the maximum FAR and met the residential design standards. Staff felt that the
garage door placement on the street would make it the predominant design feature.
Chet Winchester stated that the Placement of the garage doors on the interior made
the turning radius very tight; he provided photos of neighboring properties with
garage doors street facing. Winchester said that there were 2 neighboring houses
that met the design criteria with the garage doors facing perpendicular to the street
but one had 113 feet with 5 foot setbacks and they had 98 feet with 10 foot
setbacks on either side, which left a considerably less turning radius.
Gretchen Greenwood stated that the residential design standards were sometimes
difficult to meet for duplexes and sometimes created a more negative situation for
the neighborhood in trying to meet these standards. Greenwood explained that the
building had a 10 foot rear yard setback that backed up to the golf course; both
houses on either side had the same site lines, which Joachim and Chet wanted to
keep for the reconstruction of their duplex. Greenwood said that the side loaded
4
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes - MarCh 19~ 2002
garage doors also created a huge asphalt area in the middle with a bad design in
terms of snow removal. Greenwood stated that the proposal was to have the
garages load from the front with a single entry into the middle to be able to plant
between the 2 residences, which cut down on the amount of asphalt by about 1,000
square feet. Greenwood said that this design was a better solution in keeping with
the Aspen Area Community Plan and for the neighbors and their ~ews, which
created this hardship. Greenwood said that because of the landscaping that would
be installed the impacts of this property would be less. Weimann noted that there
were huge t~ees on his side that remained.
Ron Erickson asked i£ this was new construction why it couldn't have been
designed to conform within the design review standards. Greenwood replied that
she designed the building with the residential design standards but the variances
were requested to make this building work in a more effective way.
Bert Myrin asked if the house was made smaller so that the design could better fit
the space or was the building maxed-out on square footage. Greenwood answered
that the allowable FAR for both units together was 4,920 square feet; she said that
it was really an issue of the width of the lot. Greenwood said that it was difficult to
make the drive through with the inside facing garage doors within this width.
Myrin asked ifa 1-car garage would make the difference work out. Greenwood
replied that it would not matter because the turning radius was the same and the
snow removal problem still existed because snowmelt would be very costly.
Greenwood said that there was an addition of about 500 square feet.
Ruth Kruger asked if that the design review requirement was the objection because
it didn't work for snow removal and the amount of asphalt needed for the side
loading garages. Greenwood replied that was true.
Eric Cohen asked when the phOto on the memo was taken and how the building got
to this state of construction and development with the side loading garages; he
asked why the re-designs were submitted now. Greenwood replied that the
building met the residential design standards and the owners did not want to go
through the residential design review process early on but wanted to get the
building in the ground before winter with the option to come back to appeal that
decision. Greenwood said that it was never an option to make it a more
complicated building site by juxtapositioning the building due to the relationships
with the buildings next door. Greenwood said that it would be a real mistake not to
allow this change. Kruger asked if the garage doors were already built on the
inside. Greenwood replied that they were built.
5
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes - March 19, 2002
Tygre asked how thc driveways would work with front loading garage doors and
landscaping. Greenwood said that there was 30 feet in the front; it was much safer
to back up to the side and then pull Out forward onto the street. Greenwood said
without the actual landscape plan proposed and without the city plan for Cemetery
Lane; it was hard to determine what exactly it would look like. Greenwood stated
that they have not hired a landscape architect at this time.
Neighbors and members of the public Joe Zanin, Cynthia Callahan, Bill Drueding
and John Callahan expressed support for the variance being granted as proposed
with front-loading garage doors.
Erickson stated that he did not like to see projects come before the board with a
design flaw built into it; he said this architect designed it that way. Erickson said
that the band-aid design that made-up for the lack of design was good and
benefited the project.
Tygre said that she did not agree with the concept of the Residential Design
Standards and stated that there were specific criteria that the commission had to
follow. Tygre said with the proper landscaping this could meet criteria 2A and add
a condition that this was a more effective solution and it was contingent upon an
acceptable Landscape Plan to Community Development. Erickson asked that there
be made available a plan showing that there was adequate space for cars to back
out into that area with the trees and then pull out. Erickson stated that Gretchen
said that she could minimize the effects of the garage doors not looking like 2
garage doors. Greenwood stated that it was 25 feet from the asphalt to the street;
she noted that an encroachment license would be required for the planting outside
the building envelope. Greenwood said that Parks would allow planting outside
the property line. Tygre stated that the landscape plan needed to be reviewed by
the Parks Department for the criteria to be met. Greenwood said that with what
was happening on Cemetery Lane at this time had a lot to do with their landscape
plan. Myrin also suggested that the plans for the doors and landscaping be
reviewed by P&Z prior to approval.
MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to table action and continue the public
hearing for 775 and 777 Cemetery Lane Residential Design Standard
variances for the garage door placement to April 2, 2002 for the
applicant to provide an approved Landscape Plan by Parks, a re-design
to minimize the double garage doors dominance to look like single
doors, Engineering to review encroachments and measurements. Ron
Erickson seconded. APPROVED 5-0.
Meeting adjour/aed, at 6:15
c~ki~ Lothian,'~I~p~t~ ~ity ~lerk
6