Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20020402 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes April 2, 2002 COMMISSIONER, STAFF and PUBLIC COMMENTS ........................................ 2 DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ................................................... 2 307 South MILL STREET - SPECIAL REVIEW COMMERCIAL RESTAURANT USE OF OPEN SPACE, pARKING, VIEw PLANE. ................. 3 775 anal 777 CEMETERY LANE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD VARIANCES ........................................................................... ................................. 4 LOT 11, SILVERLODE SUBDIVISION - 8040 GREENLINE and RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD VARIANCES .......................................... 8 MINUTES ............................................................................................................... 10 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes April 2~ 2002 Jasmine Tygre, chairperson, opened the regular P&Z meeting at 5:05 after the Special Growth Management meeting with Bert Myrin, Eric Cohen, Ron Erickson, Ruth Kruger, Roger Haneman and Steven Buettow present. Staff in attendance: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; James Lindt, Joyce Ohlson, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMISSIONER, STAFF and PUBLIC COMMENTS Ron Erickson inquired about the Harley Baldwin, Caribou Alley issue and Truscott. Erickson asked who was the architect for Truscott. Ted Guy was the architect. Erickson asked if Guy and Teague went to the same school. Bert Myrin asked about the process of selection by Council for representatives for a COWOP. Myrin stated that the P&Z and HPC members did not have formal involvement in the selection process for the Burlingame COWOP. Myrin felt there were problems with the process of selection by staff. Joyce Ohlson responded that the planning commission had no authority to appoint members to any COWOP group or to itself; that completely lies within the purview of the city council. Ohlson said that they have asked for volunteers for COWOP projects; those volunteers were brought to city council for selection. Ohlson stated that staff had no purview in the selection process but could make recommendations to city council by the interest of the member. Ohlson said that the council requests certain p~6pie from certain groUPs for an example someone from P&Z, HPC and a disabled person and from the affordable housing community. Ohlson responded that the COWOP meetings were open meetings for anyone to attend, so there may have been a misunderstanding. Ohlson stated that the COWOP process was intended to involve more people and be just as open as any public hearing or meeting. Jasmine Tygre requested a work program schedule and to add the reevaluation for the calculation of employee generation. Tygre asked the commissioners to submit the areas of concern to Joyce. Ohlson replied that council requested staff work on the growth management in general, revaluate the residential design standards, house size and employee generation; she said that she would work out a schedule. Erickson requested a list of topics from staff's work program. Ohlson said that P&Z would receive the community development work program emailed. Ohlson asked about meetings in the month of May; The May 7th meeting would be cancelled but the May 21 st meeting would be on the schedule. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST None. 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes APril 2, 2002 PUBLIC HEARING: 307 SOuth MILL ST~ET ' SPECIAL REVIEW COMMERCIAL RESTAURANT USE OF OPEN SPACE~ PARKING~ VIEW PLANE Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for 307 South Mill Street Special Review Commercial Restaurant Use of Open Space, Parking and View Plane. David Hoefer stated that the notice was received and the Commission had jurisdiction to proceed. James Lindt said that the applicant, Sue Parry, requested to use the open space courtyard between the restaurant and the existing 307 South Mill Street building as outdoor seating. It was required open space and it was also required that cash-in- lieu be paid for the parking mitigation. The Wheeler Opera View Plane special review request was to increase the height of the storage from 8 foot 3 inches to 9 foot 9 inChes, which was still below the building next door's height (Pacifica Restaurant). Staff felt that the outdoor seating brought additional life to the downtown core; staff recommended approval of the outdoor seating, phOtos were provided. There was nowhere on site to provide .3 parking spaces required, which would be $4500 cash-in-lieu parking mitigation fee (the fee is $15,000 per space). Alan Richman said that they would be brief and had no problem with the memo or the ~b~di~i6ns ~S ~fi~d ih the resolutionl Ruth Kruger stated that this was a great proposal and a good compromise to add livelihood to that area. Discussion: Roger Haneman asked about the view plane and the open space requirements hitting some twice as hard. Ron Erickson responded that the Wheeler View Plane was protected but that any improvement to the roof across from the Wheeler would be an improvement from what it looked like today. Erickson said there was even a discussion of going up 3 floors as long as the faqade was attraCtive. Erickson said that most of the view planes and open space exactions were being deleted from the in-fill mitigations because it caused re-development to be a non-viable economic issue. Eric Cohen said that the view planes would be removed according to the in-fill committee; the open space requirements were possibly going to be replaced by a certain percentage of employee housing. Cohen said the concept of giving back the 20 or 25% of open space for nothing was not going to be given back in whole. Myrin asked if the vents would be placed on top of this new kitchen. JeffreY Halferty responded that it Was possible and a parapet wall to screen the equipment. Jasmine Tygre stated that applications like this pro3ided a lOt o~-benefits hoWeVer the last OccuPants of this space were retail and now it would be a restaurant with 40 to 50 seats plus the outd°or seating, which 3 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes April 2, 2002 would create an additional need for employees. Tygre noted that the code did not allow the commission to address this employee generation and mitigation. Haneman Said that the3e Was the question of the maximum of employee generation for the building. Tygre stated that if the employee generation formula was in the code there would not be questions on the interpretation. Susan Parry said that the winters were so slow at the Popcorn Wagon and expected the same for the new restaurant; the summers with the outdoor seating would be when the restaurant would be the busiest. Alan Richman said that one of the best funding mechanisms for affordable housing was the affordable housing sales tax. Richman noted with all of the vacant retail spaces in town that sales tax was not being generated. Richman said the commercial spaces were generating the employees but were also generating the employee mitigation by the .45 tax. MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to approve the Wheeler Opera House View Plane Review as proposed, and a Special Review to allow the applicant to pay a cash-in-lieu fee of $4500 to mitigate for .3 parking spaces for the proposed 150 square foot addition and to utilize required open space for a commercial restaurant at 307 South Mill Street with the following conditions: (1). The existing sewer line serving the space shall be investigated further to determine if it is suitable for an additional restaurant use. The sewer line shall be brought into conformance with the Sanitation District's Standards if required. The City of Aspen Parks ~ Department, City Engineer and AsPen Consolidated sanitation District shall be consulted prior to doing any work on the sewer line Within the Public right-of-way. (2). The Applicant Shall connect the roof drains to a drywell. (3). The ApPlicant shall provide two bathrooms on-site or receive a variance from the State of Colorado Health Department. (4). The Applicant shall provide an oil and grease interceptor that meets the Environmental Health Department and the Aspen Sanitation District's requirements. (5). The Applicant shall provide a bear-proof trash container on-site. (6). The bar shall be fully handicap accessible. (7); The APplicant shall obtain HPC approval prior to making any exterior alterations to the structure. (8). The Applicant shall obtain a COlorado FoOd Establishment License prior to opening as a Restaurant. (9). The Applicant shall obtain a liquor license prior to serving alcohol. (10). All uses and cOnstrUctiOn Shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System. Ron EriCkson seconded. Roll call vote: Haneman, yes; Myrin, yes; Buettow, yes; Cohen, yes; Erickson, yes; Kruger, yes; TYgre, no. APPROVED 6-1. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (03/19/02): 775 and 777 CEMETERY LANE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD VARIANCES Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing for 775 and 777 Cemetery Lane Residential Design Standard variances for the garage door placement. James Lindt said that at the last public hearing on March 19th P&Z reviewed the variance requests from the applicants Chet Winchester and Joachim Weimann and the architect Gretchen GreenwoOd for the garage doors that face the street as well as double stall garage doors. Staff still felt that standards A and B were not met 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes April 2, 2002 however the commission gave specific instruction to come back with a landscape plan, which Parks reviewed and a garage door layout, which Engineering reviewed with dimensions and turning radius. Staff still recommended denial of these variances. Lindt noted that there was no planting within the public right-of-way; trees in the public right-of-way were being provided by the City Parks Department. There was a new architect that did the new plans who asked for the standards of denial. Lindt responded that the 3 standards were (1) greater compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan; (2) more effectively addressed the provision that thc standard was intended to prevent and (3) that it was clearly necessary for site-specific constraints. Staf£ felt that the design of the house itself necessitated the need for the variances rather than site-specific constraints on the site itself. Staff felt that the design was driving the need for the variances. The Architect explained the reasoning for the design with the landscaping and Parks Department planting. Jasmine Tygre stated that for the Planning and Zoning COmmission to consider the variances certain specific criteria must be met regardless of anything else; those criteria were the only tools that the commission had to consider the variances. Tygre reiterated that was the focus of the scope of the commission's authority. Winchester said that they have come back with the various things with thc hope of granting th~ ~esl Tygre res(areal that the 3 Criteria Were the tools Used to evaluate the variances. Winchester stated that the garage doors were included in the packet; engineering and parks approved the plans. Tygre stated that it was now up to the commission to make the finding that this revised plan did or did not conform to the criteria. Winchester said that he thought that they were kind of there with the exception of the commission wanting to see the doors and planting. Tygre stated that the motion was for thc applicant to show revisions to the plan so the commission could allow the variances; the commission could not make the finding because the plans were not reviewed. Kruger stated that the commission needed more information. Steven Buettow noted that the structures were already built and asked the distances between the garages. Weimann replied that it was 32 feet. The architect stated that architectural graphic standards required 36 feet with a minimum 1 lfoot driveway. Lindt said that the engineering department required 24 feet for back-up. Kruger explained that the space needed to be moved around in order to make the parking work. The architect stated that when the parking was in front of their units Mr. Weimann or Mr. Winchester couldn't exit because of the layout of the garage doOrs being in the middle and that was why there was all the pavement. 5 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes April 2, 2002 Erickson said that the examples of the garage doors provided were not what the commission wanted. Erickson asked if there were verticals in the landscape plan to sh0W h°w the ~ess WOuld Sha~e the h°use °r garage fr°m the Street. Weimann replied that the parking department was going to have a green space between the bike path and their property line. Winchester stated that it was in the city right-of- way for green space and the city wanted the driveway open for a view plane coming in and out. Bert Myrin said that the P&Z's goal was to have this look less like a driveway and more like a yard; there were originally bay windows on the street facing side of the garage: Myrin said that these garage doors didn't look like bay windows and that you were restricted in the landscaping but he asked the applicant to look into grass rings. The architect responded that they had discussed that also; he said they were nervous about the snow melting on the grass as opposed to the hard surface; the heat is stored in the hard surface and melts the snow. Lindt asked what grass rings exactly meant. Myrin replied that in cities they were called grass pavers. Myrin said that the doors would not match the siding and would be garage doors. Weimann stated that the outside of the houses were all stone. No public comments. Ericks0n ~aid that he ~g3eed wi~ james pOint of vieTM regarding the design of the house; however the band aid made the place look better than it did before. Erickson said that if it could conform to the standards; he said that they met the first 2 standards in terms of landscaping and concrete turn around area, however one of the things suggested was that the garage doors were designed not to look like garage doors and said that he had a problem with these garage doors. Myrin asked if there were more garage doors than the ones in the packet. Winchester said that they would like to have it blend it but they were using natural stone and would like to comply but all the garage doors up and down the street looked like garage doors. Steven Buettow said that when the residential design standards were originally passed one of the major goals was to make sure that the houses did not look like garages and minimize and lessen the impacts and not to see asphalt front yards. Buettow said that he did not see a hardship because there was an original design that did work and could possibly lead to more grass in the front; the entire Cemetery Lane would be coming up for remodels in the next 10 years and if this were a strong model with garages pointing toward the inside would follow the standard and would be a model for the rest of the houses on Cemetery Lane. wei~nn s~ated ~ha~ the g~ages faced ~he Street on C~metery Late. Buettow responded that was what the residential design standards wanted to get away from. 6 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes April 2~ 2002 Winchester noted that from the last hearing there was more asphalt and they were trying to create something in the middle to break it up without backing into each other. Jasmine Tygre stated that she was surprised by the plan tonight because last meeting's plan had shown more vegetation, which provided additional screening as approved by the parks department. Tygre said that without the landscape screening, the plan becomes much less attractive and stated that she was disappointed. Weimann said that the city landscape plan was approved. Winchester stated that there were the large trees on the sides that remained. Eric Cohen said that he agreed with the planning staff's comments that the variances were driven by the design of the house, which did not need to be designed that way to begin with and was represented by the architect who said that she figured that was the way that they would do it one way and then come in and ask for the variances later. Cohen said that based on those facts, this was a waste of the commission's time. Roger Haneman said that the vegetation was to hide the bad design; so whatever the vegetation was would not change his mind on this. Haneman said if this had come before the commission in the design phase, he said that he would have voted n° because he woUld ha~e Prefe~ed the garage in the rear. · Tygre reiterated that in order to vote the criteria have to be met; the findings must be made. Kruger said that the project had challenges to include the duplex with the FAR on a site of 98 by 153; she said that she didn't think the garages could have been placed in the back. Kruger said that there were large trees on the sides and the landscaped middle. Myrin said that he still felt that it was possible to have the garage doors facing the street that would work if it were all grass out front. MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to approve P&Z Resolution #12, series 2002 approving variance from Residential Design Standards to allow two street facing garages that are lOcated forward of the duplexes at 775 and 777 Cemetery Lane and allow for double stall garage doors. Ruth Kruger seconded. Roll call vote: Myrin, no; Buettow, no; Cohen, yes; Kruger, yes; Itaneman, yes; Erickson, no; Tygre, no. DENIED 4-3. Erickson said that he felt that the applicant met 2 of the 3 standards and would like to make another motion for the applicant to come back for review of the garage doors. Cohen stated that the no votes were all based upon the same thing, the garage doors. Myrin said that if there were green grass in the front he would have accePted the motion. Eri~kson said that he did not have the grass concerns but rather the barn door or garage door look on the street that should be minimized for 7 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes April 2~ 2002 the street, which was not accomplished. Myrin agreed with Ron on the garage doors, but he suggested the grass since there was not another selection for the garage doorS tonight, so that there could be a vote tonight. Buett0TM said Bert's idea of the grass was good and the primary look for the garage doors not looking like garage doors. Tygre said that she might go along with the re-design of the garage doors but since she didn't know if the parks department would provide enough screening from the street for her to support it, but she was willing to look at the garage doors. Erickson suggested the garage doors looked like the side of the garage did when the sides faced the street, so it looks like the side of the house. Winchester said that the side of the house was stone, so the garage doors would never look like the side of the house. MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to continue the meeting to April 16th for the applicant to come back with new garage doors designs providing less impacts. Bert Myrin seconded. APPROVED 7-0. PUBLIC HEARING: LOT 1L SILVERLODE SUBDIVISION- 8040 GREENLINE and RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD VARIANCES Jasmine Tygre opened the public heating for Lot 11 SilverLode Subdivision. David Hoefer stated that the proof of notice was provided. James Lindt stated that JOhn Elmore rePresented by Stan Mathis submitted the application. The proposed 8040 Greenline review was to increase the allowable FAR on site by 317 square feet; the requested variances were from the secondary mass, building orientation and driveway cut from the residential design standards. Lindt said that the lot was 13,329 square feet and 3,172 square feet FAR was allowed by right; the Ordinance that created the SilverLode Subdivision allowed an increase of FAR with 8040 Greenline approval. Lindt said the 317 square feet would not have a negative impact on the visual appearance from the street; there was a geological report noting no impacts from the addition of the 317 square feet. Lindt noted that the applicant proposed the front faCade of the house be located ~parallel to the front edge of the building envelope, which was slightly cocked from the street. Staff felt the applicant made an effort to meet the standard because the building envelope had constraints with a 20-foot easement on the property. Lindt said that the proposed driveway cut would exceed the 2-feet in depth standard from the property line to the front setback; there was a 19% grade on the property slope and engineering only allOwed a 15% maximum for a driveWay, therefore it was necess~ that the driVeWay cut be more than 2~fee~ in depthl 8 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes April 2, 2002 Lindt said that there was an approval for a separate design that more effectively broke up the mass and distinctively broke up the mass, which was attached as exhibit "D" to proVide 2 distinct maSses with a 2'storY element in the baCkground. Staff recommended the secondary mass be denied. Stan Mathis said that secondary mass was created for the West End and a pedestrian experience from the street. Mathis stated that the slope was very steep here and the pedestrian experience was looking directly up in all cases and not at the eye level. John Elmore stated that this was the last lot to be built upon and what they have done was more in keeping with the Design Standards rather than the other houses built in this subdivision. Elmore said that the lot backed up to BLM land so there was no way to get behind the house without an alley. No public comments. Buettow stated that the first few houses that went up in the SilverLode Subdivision were not required to comply with the Residential Design Standards or the 8040 Greenline Review. Cohen stated that the variance was reasonable and suited the neighborhood better. MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to approve The P&Z Resolution #14 for the 8040 Greenline Review for the Elmore Residence approving Variances From Building Orientation and Driveway Slope Residential DeSign standhrdS; aPProving a Variance from the Secondary MaSs Residential Design Standard For Lot 11, Silverlode Subdivision (Parcel #2737-074-30-004) with conditions A & B met, and the conditions as follows: (1) The Applicant shall submit a detailed landscape plan to the City of Aspen Parks Department at the time of building permit submittal. (2) The applicant shall obtain a tree removal permit for any trees to be removed. (3) Barrier and Construction fencing shall be placed around the building envelope during construction and shall not be removed until the applicant obtains a Certificate of Occupancy. (4) The Applicant shall place a vegetation protection fence around the driplines of any tre6s to be saved and shall have the City Forester or his designee inspect the fencing prior to commencing construction activities. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction equipment, construction backfill, foot or vehicular traffic shall be allowed within the driplines. (S)The Applicant shall install a fire sprinkler system throughout the residence if it is over 5,000 SF. (6) The building permit application shall include: (a) A copy of the final P&Z Resolution. (b) The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. (c) A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation DistricL (d) A tree removal permit as required by the City Parks Department and any approval from the Parks Department Director for off-site replacement or mitigation of removed trees, if applicable. (e) The building plans shall demonstrate an adequate fire Suppression system approved by the Aspen Fire Marshall. (7) All construction vehicles, materials, and debris shall be maintained on-site and not within public rights- of-way unless specifically approved by the Director of the Streets Department. All vehicle parking, including contractors' and their employees', shall abide by the 2 hour residential parking limitation of the area. The applicant shall inform the contractor of this condition. (8) The applicant shall abide by all noise ordinances. Construction activity is limited to the hours between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m, Monday through Saturday. (9) All uses and construction will comply With the City of Aspen water SYstem Standards and with Title 25 and applicable portions Of Title 8 (Water COnservation and Plumbing AdVisory COde) of the A~pen MUniCiPal Code as they Pertain to utilities. (10) The Applicant or owner shall mitigate any public impacts that this project causes, including but not 9 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes April 2, 2002 limited to utility expenses and sanitary sewer and water lines. (11) The applicant shall snowmelt the driveway. Bert Myrin seconded. APPROVED 7-0, MINUTES MOTION: Ron Erickson moVed to approve the March 19, 2002 minutes; Eric Cohen seconded. APPROVED 7-0. Meeting adjoUrned 6:45 p.m. ~o/ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 10 MOTION: Roger Itaneman moved to approve the April 2, 2002 minutes with the addendum of Bert Myrin's comments: Myrin stated that the P&Z and HPC meeting minutes going back several years reflected a formal involvement of P&Z and HPC in the selection of their representatives that were recommended to Council for various COWOP's and other Council appointed positions. Myrin stated that this was a very sharp contrast to the appointment process of two P&Z members and an HPC member to the Obermeyer COgVOP that are not reflected in the minutes of any P&Z or ttPC meeting. Myrin felt that when the City is an interested developer the City should never have the appearance of an old boy network or insider networking where a member of staff is choosing COWOP members rather than allowing P&Z to have a formal involvement in recommending its representatives. Myrin indicated that what happened here was a sneaky way for Staff to use a back door available Only in developments where the City is a potential developer. Myrin believes there have been some problems with the presentation of the InFill project, a slanting of data at times, and removing the formal involvement of P&Z in selecting the COWOP member underlines his concern. Myrin asked if the P&Z's formal invOlvement in the recommendation of its representatives did not meet the goals of Staff, then does Staff have veto power over the recommendation process that occurred at P&Z? Myrin stated he is committed to the idea of citizen volunteers not being circumvented by staff or "the system ,, to the idea that P&Z, consists of hard working citizen volunteers working with professional staff, and with those commissioners charged with giving advice to Council, not abrogating that duty to staff, Ruth Kruger seconded. APPROVED 5-0.