The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutminutes.apz.20040113ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 13~ 2004 COMMISSIONER COMMENTS .............................................;.. ............................... ~ ................ 2 DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS .............................................................. 2 420 THUNDERBOWL LANE PUD AMENDMENT ..... ,~..~.,..~ ............ . ................. : ......... : ...... 2 517 PARK CIRCLE PUD AMENDMENT, SUBDIVISION AND GMQS EXEMPTIONS. 5 938 SOUTH MILL STREET, PARCEL 6, ASPEN MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION PUD ...... 5 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 13, 2004 Jasmine Tygre opened the special meeting of the Aspen'Planning & Zoning held in Rio Grande Place. Commissioners present were Steve Skadron, John Rowland, Dylan Johns, Jack Johnson, Ruth Kruger and Jasmine Tygre: Roger Haneman and Eric Cohen were excused': Staff in attendance were Chris Bendon, Scott Woodford, James Lindt, community Development; Jackie Lothian Deputy City Clerk. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Jasmine Tygre commented that when the Aspen Youth Center was originally proposed that this location would never be used as a youth center but would be used as a government building. Chris Bendon provided the schedule for Obermeyer meetings. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS None stated. PUBLIC HEARING: 420 THUNDERBOWL LANE PUD AMENDMENT Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for 420 Thunderbowl Lane PUD Amendment. Proof of notice was provided. James Lindt stated the request was to amend the building envelopes and activity envelopes to accommodate a mechanical vault, which contains snowmelt for the driveway. Lindt said there was a sheer wall that faces Thunderbowl Lane, which the applicant proposed to cut out and replace with a mesh material so that it was less visible from Thunderbowl Lane. Lindt said it was a minor encroachment outside the activity envelope and it could be sufficiently screened from the road; staff does not condone building outside the activity or building enveloPes. Staff recommended approval with the conditions in the resolution. Michael Thompson, architect with Lipkin-Warner, presented the landscape renderings with 3 more evergreens and 4 deciduous trees for screening. Thompson stated that the owner hired a private contractor to do some of the work on the vault. Thompson said there would be screening over the vault to 1/eep out animals. Jack Johnson said that staff said the application was for a minor encroachment but the staff memo notes that this vault was constructed without approval and not shown on the original plans. Lindt stated that the applicant constructed the vault without approval. Thompson explained that the owner wanted additional snowmelt on the uphill side adjacent to the house beside the driveway and decided to pay the REMP fees but the mechanical room inside the house was not big ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 13~ 2004 enough to house all the mechanical; he said that he drew it in the activity envelope below grade but it was constructed above grade. Jack Johnson asked if this affected the FAR. Lindt replied that it was less than 5 foot 6 inches in height and was not heated space so it did not affect the FAR. Johnson asked what the P&Z options were. Lindt replied the options were to deny the request, which would require them to remove the vault and relocate the snowmelt equipment to another place on site or add additional conditions. Dylan Johns asked what the private ski easement was and whom did it benefit. Lindt responded that it was a Ski Company. Thompson stated that it was 6 inches above the driveway, seeded with grass and treated the same way as the side yard landscape upper area. Jasmine Tygre asked the number of square feet that the building envelope and activity envelopes were encroached upon. Lindt answered the entire encroachment was about 170 square feet (½ in the activity envelope and ½ outside). Stephen Kanipe, chief building official for the City of Aspen, stated that the plans showed no vault therefore it was not inspected. Kanipe said that one plan was submitted with approximately 3,000 square feet of snowmelt and when the inspection was done it was rejected because there were over 4,000 square feet of snowmelt measured; the dimensions on the snowmelt were not what was actually seen and work was stopped at that point on the snowmelt approvals. Johnson asked if there was a certificate of occupancy issued. Lindt said the c.o. was issued on the original design, driveway and snowmelt. Thompson said that an architect from his firm came and told him that the snowmelt and wall were expanded from what was drawn; the Highlands Design Review Board was also reviewing this. Thompson said the owner told him the amount of extra floor area could be determined later; the owner asked him to amend this application and he did that to pay the fee for the additional snowmelt. Dylan John asked if the boulders were what the Highlands Desigh Review Board objected to. Thompson said that was correct but did not yet know if the screening was acceptable. Lindt Said the activity envelope allows for grading and retaining walls to support driveways and exterior spaces. Johns asked if this was an example of the tail wagging the dog for either the Highlands Design Review Board or the City Building Department not having signed off on this to amend the building envelopes. Lindt replied this was the first step in legalizing it; the building department still had more review for compliance with the building code and there 3 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 13~ 200~ was a zoning enforcement issue also because it was outside the activity and building envelopes. Public COmments Brendt Lowe, public, Ridge Runner Construction owner; stated that he was the original contractor and utilized maps to show the construction, regarding, re- vegetation, and negotiations between Hines, City Water and the owner. Lowe said the snowmelt equipment vault started °ut to be a slab open on the downhill side with two little retaining walls, which he treated as a landscape element because they were below grade but did not realize that they had passed out of the activity envelope. Lowe noted that he has not worked for this client since April 2003. MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to approve Resolution #2, 2004, approving with conditions a PUD amendment to allow for an amendment to the designated building envelope at 420 Thunderbowl Lane to allow for the mechanical vault that was constructed outside of the building envelope to be maintained. Seconded by John Rowland. Roll call vote: Johnson, no because of criteria #3; Rowland, no because of criteria #3; Skadron, no because of criteria #3; Johns, yes; Kruger, yes; Tygre, no citing criterion #3. DENIED 4-2. Discussion: Johns asked how this vault affected the easement. Kruger said the trees also seem to be in the easement. Lindt said the easement could not be amended. Johns said he was not a fan of doing something in areas that were to remain untouched but given the ground around it he said it had an impact on the site but would be easily screened; this seemed like a Highlands Design Review Board issue more than a P&Z issue. Steve Skadron noted this was precedent established by ignoring the guidelines. Kruger said that this was unfortunate to look at after the fact but she looked to staff in their recommendations for the approval even though she was not happy about this. Johnson said that as a matter of public policy by sitting on this commission and it was in the best inertest of the public policy he felt this should be required to tear this vault out; he would vote against the motion. Tygre said that his comments were aligned with Jack's and Steve's and there was a procedure to be followed; this project was inherited from the county as a PUD, which had gone through huge amounts of reviews and details establishing building envelopes and actiVity envelopes. Tygre said that she resented having to spend this amount of time on a project that shOuld have gotten approval prior to building because someone refused to follow the rules was absolutely mortifying to this commission. 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 13~ 2004 Jasmine Tygre noted this room was very acoustically unfit, there were no lights and the sounds that came from the ceiling vents were deafening. The commission agreed never to meet in this room in the winter. PUBLIC HEARING: 517 PARK CIRCLE PUD AMENDMENT~ SUBDIVISION AND GMQS EXEMPTIONS Jasmine Tygre asked for proof of notice. Jackie Lothian stated there was no proof of notice; the hearing was not opened. PUBLIC HEARING: 938 SOUTH MILL STREET~ PARCEL 6~ ASPEN MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION PUD Jasmine Tygre opened the public heating and notice was provided. Scott Woodford stated this was a request for an 8040 Greenline review and staff felt the criteria had been met for the 8040 Greeneline Standards. No public comments. MOTION: clack dohnson moved to approve Resolution (43, series 2004, for an 8040 Greenline Review for a proposed single-family residence at 938 South Mill Street Parcel 6, Aspen Mountain Subdivision PUD. Ruth Kruger seconded. Roll call vote: dohns, yes; Rowland, yes; Skadron, yes; Kruger, yes; dohnson, yes; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 6-0. Adjourned at 6:00 pm. ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk