HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20030107ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 7, 2003
COMMISSIONER, STAFF and PUBLIC COMMENTS......................................................................................2
MINUTES..................................................................................................................................................................2
DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ..................................... .................... 2
MAROON CREEK ROAD REZONING................................................................................................................ 2
RESIDENCES AT LITTLE NELL PUD.................................................................................................................3
1000 E. HOPKINS PUD AMENDMENT, GMQS AFFORDABLE HOUSING OFF -SITE REPLACEMENT,
SPECIALREVIEW.................................................................................................................................................. 6
LOTS 1 AND 2 MAROON CREEK CLUB PUD AMENDMENT....................................................................... 9
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION I JANUARY 7.2003
COMMISSIONER, STAFF and PUBLIC COMMENTS
Bert Myrin asked about the work session with council on January 28th. Joyce
Ohlson responded that the infill ordinance was going to council on the 27th and
scheduled a work session with P&Z for the following night on infill.
Joyce Ohlson stated that continued public hearings were usually scheduled near
the top of the agenda; the Residences at Little Nell continued public hearing
would move to the second hearing on the agenda tonight.
MINUTES
MOTION: Bert Myrin moved approve the minutes from December 17,
December 10, December 03 and November 12, 2002; seconded by Roger
Haneman. APPROVED 6-0.
DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Jack Johnson stated that he had a conflict on Residences at Little Nell PUD.
PUBLIC HEARING:
MAROON CREEK ROAD REZONING
Jasmine Tygre opened the d public hearing on the rezoning of the Maroon Creek
Road. David Hoefer stated that the notice was provided.
Sarah Oates stated that the BOCC and City Council have agreed to annex a portion
of the Maroon Creek Road from the tennis courts at Iselin (a map included in the
memo). Oates noted one of the requirements for annexation was to place zoning
on the annexed property. Staff recommended that the Road be rezoned to public,
which would public infrastructure. This was basically a house keeping issue
cleaning up the annexation of the road to the city after it was brought to the city
engineer standards.
MOTION: Bert Myrin moved to approve P&Z Resolution #01-03
recommending City Council approve the rezoning of the Maroon Creek
Road and annexation as shown on parcels A-E; seconded by Ruth
Kruger. Roll call vote: Johnson, yes; Haneman, yes; Kruger, yes;
Cohen, yes; Johns, yes; Myrin, yes; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 7-0.
2
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY '1, 2003
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (12/03/03):
RESIDENCES AT LITTLE NELL PUD
Eric Cohen opened the continued public hearing on the Residences at Little Nell.
David Hoefer noted that a letter from the Aspen Alps, Pamela Cunningham, was
placed into the public record. The applicant provided a model of the area.
Scott Woodford reviewed the issues from the December 3rd meeting beginning
with the character of the architecture, the design and height of the restaurant
portion of the project with a ridge height at 45 feet, 56-foot high on another
portion of the building, the massing and FAR with the proposed 2-1 ratio, the
minimum height was 32 feet, neighbors concerned about building being too large
at 110,000 square foot building, the setback of 8 feet being too close to the
neighboring building, open space requirement with regards to the street, site
planning, traffic flow, mitigation for pedestrian vehicular conflicts at the porte
cochere at Galena, affordable housing parking, construction management
precautions and non -conforming single-family residences. New issues were the
affordable housing, rezoning and time-share.
Sunny Vann commented that the architecture was an appropriate way to deal with
the difficult site; Kim Weil could discuss the character. Vann said that height of
the restaurant was a concern to the North of Nell Homeowners Association; there
was an attempt made to reduce the impact on Dean Avenue of the building by
recessing the building from the street front. The upper level was setback from the
fagade; the roof of the third level was the same height as the North of Nell. The
restaurant was to have a visually inviting plaza area. Vann said that an acceptable
condition would be to continue to study the visual impacts of that roof on that
portion of that building. Vann stated that the average building height was 42 feet
with a portion at 56 feet in which a height variance would be required; they were
not prepared to change the height at this time. The mass and size was at a 2 to 1
ratio; similar to the buildings established in the surrounding area and large enough
to make this a financially viable project with the wide variety of amenities. Vann
said that moving the ski lift at their expense to accommodate the outside amenities
would change the setback issue along the upper Southwest portion of the building;
he said that they exceed the city open space requirement but the definition of how
open space was calculated by dimension was not met. Vann noted the change in
the traffic flow and porte cochere on behalf of North of Nell. Vann said that there
was enough parking for the affordable housing, free-market and commercial and
construction management would be satisfied. The non -conforming homes would
conform to the zoning requirements after re -zoning; there would be no additional
expansion capabilities for those 2 homes. The final PUD for the dimensional
requirements would be complete with a survey.
3
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 7, 2003
Lennie Oates, public, stated that he represented the North of Nell Condominium
Association; the concern was with the signature building height. Oates noted that
a portion of the building was located in the Conservation zone district. The
conservation zone was to provide areas of low -density development, to develop
public recreation, conserve natural resources and contain urban development.
Oates stated that they were not opposing the general development but rather this
specific aspect of it, which would set forth that there have been any changed
circumstances which would dictate that they would be able to develop their
property under the existing zoning.
Pamela Cunningham, public, general manager of the Aspen Alps, stated that her
letter was submitted into the public record. Cunningham said that there were 2
major concerns for the excavation and drainage contained therein. Cunningham
also stated concern for the shipping and receiving service area.
Steve Falendar, public, 712 South Galena, stated that he agreed with Lennie Oates
comments. Falendar was also concerned about the massing of the buildings and
the soil stability on the site; he asked for some protection during the construction
process. Falendar stated concern for the reduction in the side yard setback
between the south end of the building and the single-family houses, which directly
impacts their light and views. Falendar said that 56 feet was high and the 42-foot
average was too big. ,
Peter Thomas, public, representing the Galena Place Townhomes, stated that
Galena Place sat directly to the west of this project. Thomas stated that the
objections were the height and the setbacks; Galena Place was 8 feet away at one
point from the proposed structure. Thomas said that they were happy about the
staff sensitivity to the site. Thomas stated that the PUD language in the code was
that underlying zone districts shall be used as a guide; he echoed Mr. Falendar's
comments on 56 feet being twice the underlying zone district allowable height.
Eric Cohen asked for clarification regarding the location of the service and
receiving. Vann responded that it was designed as a loading/service dock from
Galena Street within the parking garage with service elevators. Vann said that
there was a so-called tunnel under the Gondola building to provide shared use
from the Little Nell Hotel.
Ruth Kruger asked for clarification on the property line by the steps from the
Tippler. Kim Weil, Bill Poss Associates, stated that the steps would be taken
away and the property would be acquired from SkiCo. Kruger asked the access to
the landlocked lot #2 and where the conservation piece was located. Weil replied
M
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 7, 2003
that it was through the building. Vann responded that the SkiCo owned the parcel
of land that the Little Nell hotel, Hunter Street and up to the east side of this
project was located on with a SPA overlay. Vann stated that a portion of the hotel
was zoned CC commercial and the rest was C conservation. They received SPA
approval to build the hotel, gondola and commercial space below it then
subdivided into 2 lots. Vann explained that the land acquired from the SkiCo was
a strip on the east side of the project, the restaurant portion, the land under the
outdoor terrace area and a portion of residence building. Vann further explained
that the majority of the zoning was LTR and the commercial space on the Dean
Street right-of-way is not a permitted use in the LTR zone district; the CL zone
district (North of Nell) permits both lodging and commercial space; they propose
to rezone everything except the 2 single-family homes CL. The allowable FAR in
the CL zone is 2 to 1; the allowable FAR in the LTR zone is 1 to 1. Vann noted
that the simplest approach was to rezone everything CL.
The commission agreed that the architectural character was acceptable. The
design/height of the restaurant was not acceptable (4-2). The location was
acceptable to the commission. The overall building height at 56 feet from grade to
the peak and 53 feet higher up the slope was not acceptable to the commission.
The commission did not support the size of the building (5-1). The proposed
setback from the neighbors at 8 feet was not acceptable (5-1) to the commission.
Open space was a non -issue for the commission as proposed. The site plan
orientation was acceptable to the commission. The traffic flow because of the
parking problems to the garage with the circulation was a problem for the
commission and more review was requested for the porte cochere on Galena. The
orientation of the building on the site in general was acceptable to the commission.
The parking was acceptable as proposed. The engineering plans were of concern
to the neighbors; the engineering plans being made available to the public was
acceptable to the commission. The non -conforming structures on Lots 2 and 3
would be brought into conformance by establishing the dimensional requirements,
which was acceptable to the commission.
Sunny Vann said the restaurant was 8,000 square feet divided between two floors;
Jasmine Tygre stated that the restaurant did not have to have that height if it were
redesigned. Ruth Kruger said that she did not feel that 42 feet was all that high in
that location because it was only a few feet taller than the North of Nell with
greater mass. Eric Cohen stated concern for the over all height variances, which
seemed to significantly impact the neighbors. Tygre said that the building was
very large and if there were variations in rooflines with towers it might be more
attractive; right now the buildings were excessive in height. Roger Haneman said
that the overall building was about 20% too large.
W
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 7, 2003
Vann explained that the model calculations were taken from the city's GIS. Vann
said one way to solve the problem of the buildings being too close was to move
the building to the east, which would solve the Galena Place setback problem and
Mr. Falendar's setback problems. Dylan Johns stated that shifting the building
would be a better solution. Bert Myrin stated concern for shifting the building
into the conservation space.
Vann stated that the garage would not be redesigned but rather conditioned in the
resolution and forwarded to council. The resolution would be updated to reflect
the changes from each public hearing. Several commissioners would go with staff
on a site visit prior to the next meeting.
MOTION: Jasmine Tygre moved to continue the public hearing on the
Residences at Little Nell to January 21, 2003; seconded by Ruth
Kruger. APPROVED 6-0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
1000 E. HOPKINS PUD AMENDMENT, GMQS AFFORDABLE HOUSING
OFF -SITE REPLACEMENT, SPECIAL REVIEW
Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing on 1000 E. Hopkins PUD Amendment,
Amendment to GMQS Exemption for Affordable Housing, Off -Site Replacement
of Employee Housing Mitigation, and Special Review to Vary ADU Design
Standards. David Hoefer stated that two notices were provided.
James Lindt explained that Bob Blatt submitted the application for an amendment
to 1000 East Hopkins PUD, amendment to the GMQS exemption for offsite
replacement of affordable housing mitigation and a special review to vary the
ADU design standards. P&Z is the recommending body to City Council. The
applicant requested removal of a deed -restriction in the 1000 East Hopkins
building, deed restrict a replacement unit in the Ajax Condominium Building as a
Category 4 for sale unit and to deed restrict the unit in the 1000 East Hopkins
Building as an ADU. Staff felt there was community benefit gaining an additional
affordable unit and the Ajax unit was a more livable unit but the proposal does not
meet the review standards for off -site replacement of affordable housing because it
would be incompatible with the adopted neighborhood plan as a review standard
for off -site replacement. Staff had concerns about the retaining wall in need of
repair at Ajax Condominium. If the off -site unit were approved there was concern
about the assessment to repair the retaining wall; a condition was proposed for an
amended condition to require the applicant to provide escrow money to cover any
future costs incurred by repair of the retaining wall based on a private engineer
0
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 7, 2003
hired by the applicant to provide a cost estimate. Staff did not support the
proposal because it did not meet the off -site replacement conditions.
Francis Krizmanich, applicant representative, said that there were 4 free-market
units and 4 deed -restricted units; the free-market owners had the right of first
refusal to purchase the employee units associated with their units. Krizmanich
said that three of the employee units were sold as employee deed -restricted units;
the fourth unit below Mr. Blatt's was different from a site design perspective.
Krizmanich noted the access was separate from the other units and was the only
rental unit; they did not feel that it functioned well as an employee rental unit but
would lend itself to be a better accessory dwelling unit. Krizmanich stated that the
issue was a rental unit, which has proved difficult in the past although Mr. Blatt
has been successful in renting out this unit but it could not be rent controlled.
Krizmanich said that the Ajax unit would be easier to administer and an ADU
would be retained at 1000 E. Hopkins. Krizmanich stated that this was a good
project because there was a net gain to housing for the city even if site issues had
to be dealt with. Krizmanich said that they were confidante in the engineering
report and the proposed conditions from staff were acceptable.
Roger Haneman asked if the Housing Office had the Ajax Condominium Owners
letters and concerns. James Lindt replied that the letters came in after the housing
referral; the Ajax Condominium covenants and declarations do not prohibit deed -
restriction as affordable housing. Ruth Kruger asked the applicant the motivation
for the change, what the turn over in tenants was and the rental price. Bob Blatt
replied that he wanted to be able to control who lived in the unit; he stated that he
has rented the unit to qualified applicants through housing with 3-4 different
people living in the unit in the last 7 years at $1500.00 a month. Bob Blatt said
that he would like to have a caretaker to help care for the unit. Kruger asked if an
interior stairway could be constructed between the 2 units. Blatt replied that their
laundry room, mudroom and garage were located in the same level as this unit.
The 12-space garage for the entire building was located on that lower level. Bert
Myrin stated that his big concern was the Telluride Case in which the rent could
be raised on this unit and there was no guarantee in keeping this unit in the rental
pool. David Hoefer replied that the Telluride Case restricted the ability of
governments to control rents; the city gets V2 of 1 %. Jasmine Tygre asked if this
unit was turned into an ADU, then it did not have to be rented. Lindt responded
that was correct. Tygre also asked if the Ajax Condominium owners have the
right of first refusal. Krizmanich replied that they did not. Tygre asked if this
(1000 E. Hopkins) unit could be turned into a sale unit. Lindt answered it would
be up to the applicant to deed -restrict it.
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 7, 2003
Tygre stated that letters from the Ajax Condominium Association had raised
concerns for the inappropriateness of a deed -restricted unit because the expensive
assessments of the retaining wall. David Hoefer stated the Ajax letters were from
Thomas Pecham, Joe Wise, Tom Chapin and David B. Spenser.
David Spenser, Ajax Condominium owner, stated that there were more letters of
opposition. Spenser stated that there was only one rental unit and this was an
older property occupied with 65% owners or permanent Aspen residents. Spenser
said that their engineer stated that the wall was in need of a huge assessment.
Spenser asked the commission to consider the Ajax Homeowners concerns.
Ellie Weinstein, 1020 East Hopkins, stated that she had 2 concerns, which were
large empty townhomes in the neighborhood and was concerned about the
connection between Mr. Blatt's unit and the unit below. Weinstein asked to keep
the ADU as it was separated from the main unit and encouraged people who lived
in the neighborhood to continue to do so.
Shane Eberwein, Ajax Condominium owner units 2 & 8, said that he was not
informed of the Ajax Condominium Association meeting where these issues were
addressed. Eberwein explained the ownership of the 9 units and supported Bob
Blatt placing a full-time local resident in an Ajax unit, which would benefit the
community.
MOTION: Roger Haneman moved to extend the meeting to 7:15 p.m.;
seconded by Bert Myrin. APPROVED 7-0.
Pamela Cunningham, public, stated that her daughter qualified and was
beneficiary of the lottery for an employee unit but the fellow denizens were not
very happy about it. Cunningham said that it was disappointing because it was a
creative way that the housing office came up with to work with employee units.
Cunningham said that as general manager of the Aspen Alps there was a long
history of the retaining wall. Cunningham voiced concern for the parking problem
in the neighborhood and with Ajax Condominiums.
Mr. Blatt said that in 7 years there has never been a default in the 1000 East
Hopkins project and he planned on selling the Ajax unit to a category 4
immediately and would comply with the staff recommendation on the wall. Blatt
said that there would be a full time resident in each unit, which would be a win -
win situation.
N.
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 7 2003
Tygre noted that the commission had criteria to follow in making the
determination. The commission discussed the options of the applicant to sell the
unit at 1000 East Hopkins, off -site replacement as a last resort, capability of the
neighborhoods with regards to deed -restricted units, the housing guidelines did
not account for this type of replacement, the Ajax Homeowners tone towards
deed -restricted units, concern for ADU rules, concern for the combining of the two
units into one large unit, additional affordable housing was a plus, the Ajax
Homeowners concerns, the Telluride decision and that the application doesn't
meet the criteria.
MOTION: Roger Haneman moved to extend the meeting to 7:30 p.m.;
seconded by Bert Myrin. APPROVED 7-0.
MOTION: Roger Haneman moved to approve P&Z Resolution #02,
series 2003, recommending that City Council approve with conditions, a
subdivision and PUD amendment, an amendment to the GMQS
exemption for affordable housing at 1000 E. Hopkins, and a special
review to vary the ADU design standards to allow for a Category
Affordable Housing Unit that is legally described as Unit 4, of the 1000
E. Hopkins PUD; to be deed restricted as an ADU to allow for the free
market unit legally described as Unit 2, of the Ajax Condominiums to
be deed restricted as a Category 4 Sale Unit to replace Unit 4, of the
1000 E. Hopkins PUD as affordable housing mitigation with the revised
condition #4. Seconded by Bert Myrin. Roll call vote: Johnson, no;
Kruger, yes; Myrin, no; Cohen, no; Johns, no; Haneman, no; Tygre, no.
DENIED 6-1.
Myrin stated that the Telluride case will continue to impact decisions like this one
even though this could have provided another employee housing unit. Eric Cohen
excused himself at 7:30 p.m.
MOTION: Roger Haneman moved to extend the meeting to 7:45 p.m.;
seconded by Bert Myrin. APPROVED 6-0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
LOTS 1 AND 2 MAROON CREEK CLUB PUD AMENDMENT
Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for Lots 1 and 2 Maroon Creek Club
Amendment. David Hoefer said that the notice was provided.
Scott Woodford introduced a letter from the Maroon Creek Master Association,
Bill Lukes, with no evaluation for specific plans. Robert Morley, architect, stated
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 7, 2003
that was correct no plans had been submitted to the homeowners association.
David Hoefer asked if the homeowners association had to approve this application
if approved by P&Z; this was just one step of two. Morley replied that was
correct, it was part of the CC&Rs that the association approves this change.
Woodford said that this was an amendment to the Planned Unit Development to
amend the platted development envelopes to combine two driveways into one.
The applicants, Jennifer and David Stockman, own lots 1 and 2 and wanted a
single Custom and Private Driveway, which cuts into the platted development
envelopes. Woodford utilized a colored site -plan drawing to show the areas of
encroachment with no development. The request included shifting the entry point
of the driveway from Lot 1 and 2; Lot 2 would be entirely contained on the
property along the front portion of Lot 1. The applicant also offered to limit the
building on the undeveloped lot to 6,000 square feet rather than 10,000. The
driveway angle would also be shifted.
Staff did not support the request because it did not comply with the PUD
Development Standards and several provisions of the Land Use Code; staff
believes it was an unnecessary duplication of a road adjacent to a city street
(Tieback Road). There would be additional and constant maintenance required to
keep the proposed driveway accessible for fire trucks without cars parked in the
driveway. There was also concern for the trees lost with this common driveway.
MOTION: Roger Haneman moved to extend the meeting to 8:00 p.m.;
seconded by Bert Myrin. APPROVED 6-0.
Kevin Morley said that in Maroon Creek there were development envelopes that
would be re -platted back to Maroon Creek, which could not be touched. Morley
said that Tiehack Road was above the property and explained each driveway
access to the lot in the subdivision. Morley said that there were native trees and
shrubs that would have to be removed. Morley said they were offering to isolate
225 square feet more by definition, whgich would be committed to landscape area;
they also offered a 4,000 square foot reduction not to build a big house next door.
Morley said of the 9 trees that will be removed, all were not native; the original
developer of Lot 1 planted some and the mitigation of 9 trees would not be a
problem. Morley said that the owners never intend to sell the properties separately
and wanted to merge the lots without joining them; .but would deed -restrict the lot
for sale of both and not just one. Morley said that it was a win -win situation with
more privacy and less exposure to the public.
10
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 7, 2003
Robert Trown, architect, stated that it was rare for a client to want to save trees
and not maximize square footage; these people want to maintain the second lot as
open space without an immediate intention of building anything on it.
David Hoefer stated that this was going onto City Council. The commissioners
felt the access easement if approved by the fire department was agreeable. Jack
Johnson expressed concern for the 6,000 square feet dwelling still being too large
on the second lot. Robert Trown stated that the concept was not to merge the lots
but to deed -restrict the lots so that they could not be sold separately. Ruth Kruger
asked the elevation drop from the road to the lots; what was the grade. Trown
replied that it was about 18 — 20 feet down from the roadway; the grade was
between 8 and 10 %. Bert Myrin asked if the 9 trees could be moved. Morley
replied that some could be moved. Trown said that the proposal stated that they
were bettering the fire situation with better access, limiting the amount of
development and willing to work within the constraints.
Myrin said that trading 4,000 square feet of inhabited space for a portion of a
driveway and 9 trees mitigated any environmental impacts more than heating an
extra 4,000 square feet of living space.
MOTION: Bert Myrin moved to approve P&Z Resolution #3, series
2003, for a PUD amendment to the platted development envelopes on
Lots 1 and 2 of the Maroon Creek Club with the requirement of an
addition of 9 trees; seconded by Roger Haneman. Roll call vote:
Johnson, no; Johns, no; Roger, yes; Kruger, no; Myrin, yes; Tygre, yes.
DENIED 3-3.
MOTION: Roger Haneman moved to approve P&Z Resolution #3,
series 2003, for a PUD amendment to the platted development envelopes
on Lots 1 and 2 of the Maroon Creek Club; seconded by Ruth Kruger.
Roll call vote: Myrin, yes; Johns, yes; Kruger, yes; Johnson, no;
Haneman, yes; Tygre, no. APPROVED 4-2.
Tygre requested the agendas reflect less cases each week even if more meetings
were necessary.
The meeting ad' ourned at, 8 : 00 p.m.
jacki�e Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
11