Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20030304ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMiSsION March 4, 2003 COMMISSIONER, STAFF and PUBLIC COMMENTS....i ................................................................ ~ .......... ;... MINUTES ....................................................................................................... ......... . ................ :....~.~ ........ .,.~ ............. 2 DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS O1* IYr~m;ST ......................................................................................... 2 PARCEL 4, TOP OF MILL 8040 G~ENLINE and DRAC V~Cg~ ..22...~. ~2222.2....2..2 .............................. 3 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION March 4, 2003 Jasmine Tygre opened the regular meeting at 4:30 pm in the Sister Cities Meeting Room. Dylan Johns, Jack Johnson, Roger Haneman and Jasmine Tygre were present. Ruth Kruger arrived at 4:35 p.m. Eric Cohen was excused. Staffin attendance: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Chris Bendon, Joyce Ohlson, Scott Woodford, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMISSIONER, STAFF and PUBLIC COMMENTS Jack Johnson asked if there was a change in the status of the Residences at the Little Nell. Scott Woodford replied that revised plans have been submitted with a significant reduction in the size of the building, not demolishing the 2 houses and taking out about 6,000 to 7,000 square feet of FAR. Jasmine Tygre mentioned that she, Dylan, Eric and Ruth were at the joint Council P&Z meeting concerning infill that focused on the residential multi-family portion with much public comment. Tygre stated that the council approached the issues at a new viewpoint. There was concern that single family and duplexes that were currently in RMF would become non-conforming uses; that was not the P&Z intention but focused on the preservation of RMF as RMF rather than convert to single family or duplex; it was an unintended consequence that just needed fine tuning. Tygre spoke of an exercise of a hypothetical application to go through the review process. Jack Johnson encouraged fellow citizens to come before P&Z with concerns because then those concerns could have been addressed months ago. Ruth Kruger said that Eric's points were very relevant and brought the group back into focus. MINUTES MOTION: Roger Haneman moved to approve the minutes from February 18, 2003; seconded by Ruth Kruger. APPROVED 5-0. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST None. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: TIPPLE LODGE GMQS EXEMPTION, SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION and TIMESHARE EXEMPTION Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing for the Tipple Lodge. Joyce Ohlson stated that there were some noticing issues. MOTION: Dylan Johns moved to continue the public hearing on the Tipple Lodge GMQS exemption, subdivision and timeshare to March 25, 2003; seconded by Ruth Kruger. APPROVED 5-0. 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSiON ~MarCh 4, 2003 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (02/15/03): PARCEL 4~ TOP OF MILL 8040 GREENLINE and DRAC VALANCES Jasmine opened the continued public hearing for ParCel4, Top of Mill 8040 Greenline and DP, AC variances. David Hoefer stated that the notice had been provided at a previous meeting. Scott Wood£ord said that the application was for an 8040 Greenline review, Residential Design Standard variances for building orientation, secondary mass and one-story street £acing element. The applicant was Rernko Van Lent represented by John Galambos. Woodford explained that most of the criteria was for the original subdivision regarding the 8040 Greenline Review evolving environmental criteria; staff did not feel that this single-family residence would impact the site more than what had already been done to the site with the installation o£utilities and grading. The criteria for the Residential Design standards: a) yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and b) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; or c) be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. Woodford said staff felt the three variances requested do not further the goals of the community plan, there were no site specific constraints or that their proposal was a better way of addressing the standard, which was a high standard to meet. Woodford said that the applicant could have designed a building that met the guidelines but their chosen design did not conform to the residential design standards and that there was room on site to accommodate a secondary mass. The secondary mass standard required that all new structures shall locate at least 10% of their total square footage above grade in a mass which is completely detached from the principal building or linked to it be a subordinate connecting element. Accessory buildings such as sheds and ADUs are examples of appropriate uses for secondary mass: Woodford stated the second variance request related to building orientation. On curvilinear streets, the front facade of all structures shall be parallel to the tangent of the midpoint of the arc of the street. Woodford said that the proposal was not too far off the tangent; the lot was set back fairly far from the street and would not be visible from the streetscape lessens the concern to comply but still doesn't meet the strict criteria. Woodford said that the one-story street facing element standard read all residential buildings shall have a One-story facing element the width of which comprises at least 20% of the building's overall width;for example, a one~story 3 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION March 4, 2003 element may be a porch roof architectural projection or living, space. Woodford said that they had a floating canopy, which was 10 feet wide and projected out 3 feet from the front fagade (15% of the overall front fagade); this did not meet the spirit of the standard. Roger Haneman asked if the street orientation could be shown on the drawings and at what point it would be measured. Jasmine Tygre said that according to the code the appeal for the exemption must meet both standards. Woodford reiterated that both standards a and b must be met. John Galambos asked if the 8040 vote could beseparate from the design standards vote. Tygre answered that it can be; if it were straightforward it could be accomplished in one motion and resolution. Galambos stated that the owner Mr. Van Lent was from the Netherlands; there were 3 variances requested. Galambos said that for the building Orientation they took a stricter approach, which was exactly 31 degrees off of the comer 0f the property line to the tangent; there were site specifics with the lot being a flag lot. It had a 25-foot wide access from Top of Mill Circle, also an access easement for parcel 5. Galambos said that the entryway was orientated so that it was visible front the street, which was a private road. Galambos said that there was no front yard setback designated for this lot in the pUD; the building was 83 feet from the curb and screened behind planting with computer-generated images that were framed with an alleyway of trees. Galamb0s said there wasn't a real street or pedestrian experience; this house as designed will have no negative impacts. Galambos said that the one-stow element was met by the floating canopy that projects 4 feet from the face of the stone and 5 foot 6 inches from the face of the door, which technically met the requirements of a porch but was 0nly 15% of the faCade that was read from the street. Galambos stated that the variance from the secondary mass was not met because the site was very difficult and sloping with a forced access point; there was a 6, foot mud and debris wall that goes around the lot. Ga!ambos said that there wasn't a good place to put a secOndary mass that would actually read like a secondary mass; the house gave the appearance of a one-stow house, which would read mostly as roof. Computer generated images were used to illustrate the home from SkiCo property, the duplex next door and from the back of the property. Galambos said that there was one-stow on half and two-stow on the other of the house; he said that if there was a detached secondary mass it would have shifted 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION March 4~ 2003 some of the FAR to a third story; they were well below the height limit in one area. Galambos Provided the area massing citing multifamily structures. Dylan Johns asked if the landscaPing was mostlY decidUOus; he asked if the Pine could be placed in front of the house. Galambos replied that was true but after a discussion with Nick Adeh, the city engineer, a new list of Plantings was °btained, which included some ponderosa pine; those pines could be Used in the front. Johns inquired about the allowable FAR; he questioned the setbacks. Galambos answered the FAR was 6200 square feet and the setbacks were designated in the PUD without a fr°nt yard. Frank Goldsmith, public, stated that he represented four peaks development, the developers of this project; they were strongly in faVor of this project and were still developing the rest of the lots. Goldsmith Said that the secondary mass on the top of this building would detract from this building. GoldSmith Said that he also represented the homeowners association, which Four Peaks also controlled. Goldsmith stated support for the project. Roger Haneman said that the street orientation wasn't very important because of the layout of the lot; it probably wouldn't be noticed if it were truly Orientated to the street because of the proximity of the street tO the building. Jasmine Tygre stated that the design review standards were difficult for the commission; the criteria were very clear (1 and 2 had to be fulfilled in °rder to grant variances) and personal opinion did not matter. Johns said the there really wasn't a relevance to the street and it was not that drastically off from how it would comply. Johns said that the detached mass could be possibly accomplished but 10% might be difficult given the site constraints. Johns said that the one-story element was a' pedestrian scale and wanted to See :a bigger break there so it wasn't such a massive structure; the floating Canopy was not enough of a presence to bring the building down as it approached the street. Haneman echoed Dylan Johns for the need to have a one-story element, which was very important as was the secondary massing of importance. Galambos said that the canopy could be prepared to extend another 3 feet but did not want to do that because of an interior element but if it were going to be a hindrance they would reconsider. Tygre responded that the commission had to vote on the proposal on the table. Johns said that just stretching that one-story element doesn't meet the intent of the standard. 5 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION March 4~ 2003 Ruth Kruger stated difficulty with the design review standards because she did not support the rules that were in place. Kruger said this was a very difficult site. Haneman said that the structure at 6200 square feet was at the maximum FAR. Jack Johnson agreed with staff on both findings; staff accurately and logically made their determination. Johnson said that the problem was that the design was built to the absolute nth degree of what was allowed and that was what creat¢d the discrepancy. Jasmine Tygre agreed that the design standards were a problem. Tygre stated that there did not seem to be a problem with the 8040 Greenline; two motions could be in order. JOhnson questioned approving the 8040 Greenline separately because if the applicant brought in a different design that impinged on the 8040 differently, then it would be problematic. Haneman agreed that criteria 6 and 7 in the resolution could cause a problem for an 8040 Green!ine redesign. Hoefer suggested continuing the entire proposal for the applicant to restudy. Galambos noted that if he could redesign to conform to the design standards then he wouldn't have to come in front ofP&Z. Tygre reiterated that the standards whether the commission liked or disliked them did not matter, but the criteria were the decision making process. Haneman noted that when this project went through the final PUD process, former P&Z member Ron Erickson felt that the square footage for the structures was perhaps too much for the site and the house sizes would be controlled by the residential design standards. MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to continue the public hearing for Parcel 4, Top of Mill 8040 Greenline and DRAC variances to March 25, 2003; seconded by Jack Johnson. APPROVED 5-0. Meeting adjourned at 5:35 p.m. J~,o~i~ ~othi~r~, Deputy City Clerk 6