Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20040615ASPEN PLANNING &.ZONING COMMISSION Minutes JUNE 15, 2004 COMMENTS .............................................................................................................................. 2 MINUTES .................................................................................................................................... 2 DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST..i .................................................. 3 1201 RIVERSIDE DRIVE REZONING ............................................................................. 3 633 WEST NORTH STREET RESIDENTIAL-DESIGN 'STANDARDS VARIANCE 3 725 WEST BLEEKER - RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS VARIANCE 16 310 WEST BLEEKER - RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS VARIANCE.. 8 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes JUNE 15, 2004 Jasmine Tygre opened the. regular Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting at 4:30 pm in the Sister Cities Meeting Room. Members John Rowland, Brandon Marion, Dylan Johns, Ruth Kruger, Roger Haneman, Steve Skadron, Jack Johnson and Jasmine Tygre were present. Staffpresent: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Joyce Allgaier, James Lindt, Sarah Oates, Scott Woodford, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMENTS Brandon Marion suggested having a commission meeting to be pro-active with an ideas meeting. Jasmine Tygre responded that in the past they have had a commissioner wish list that was submitted to staff. Joyce Allgaier said that was a good way to start and also have joint meetings with the city council. The commission should email the wish list to Joyce. John Rowland asked the status of the temporary outdoor food vending. Joyce Allgaier replied that city council was talking about it tight now; first reading was last night and they created an emergency ordinance, which allowed them to immediately have a public heating on the following night. Allgaier stated the concept was to allow retail and restaurants that currently have a downtown location to have some kind of food vending to set up a table or cart or someone associated with .them. Allgaier said it was to try it on a temporary summer basis and see how it goes. Allgaier noted that city council did not approve the Chart House Lodge last night because of serious concerns on the height and continued the hearing. Brandon Marion said even the minutes reflected P&Z concerns for the height. James Lindt stated that Council would remand back to P&Z the application after amended plans are submitted. Roger Haneman said the setbacks were of concern as was the height but he knew that City Council would come down on the applicant regarding the height; the guidance P&Z was giving was 'to look at the height but the primary concern seemed to be to accommodate the setbacks. Jasmine Tygre stated the P&Z comments needed to be even more concise with the conditions listed. Jack Johnson said this might serve that the applicant pay attention to P&Z with what they do. Dylan Johns said that P&Z needed to be clear what was acceptable. Tygre said that it was not always the consensus of all P&Z members and the vote was the clear way; the more clarity given to the applicant the better. MINUTES MOTION.. Roger Haneman moved to approve the minutes of May 11, May 25, and June 01, 2004; seconded by Steve Skadron. APPROVED 7-0. 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes JUNE 15, 2004 DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Roger Haneman and Ruth Kruger recused themselves on 725 West Bleeker. Brandon Marion recused himself on 310 West Bleeker. PUBLIC HEARING: 1201 RIVERSIDE DRIVE REZONING Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing on 1201 Riverside. MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to continue the public hearing on 1201 Riverside Rezoning to July 6th; seconded by Steve Skadron. APPROVED 7-0. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: 633 WEST NORTH STREET RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS VARIANCE Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing on 633 West North Street. David Hoefer'stated the notice had been provided and distributed the criteria sheet for the next 3 projects. Hoefer said the criteria sheet should help to clarify if the criteria have or have' not been met and for the purpose of voting. Scott Woodford stated there were two variances being sought by the applicant. The secondary mass variance request was on residence "b" because there was no separation between the mass; the design standards call for at least 10% separation between the mass with a separated or detached building. Woodford said they have provided an appropriate pattern of development, which complies with the neighborhood on massing. Woodford said the second variance was for windows between 9 and 12 feet; the window was only transparent in the center. The majority of the window was a semi-opaque material that lets light in and it doesn't necessarily read as a window from the outside. Computer generated photos were provided. Woodford said criterion #1 was complied with. Scott Lindenau, architect Studio B, stated the client was from Sweden and wanted a more modem solution; they had the option of 1 house or 2 and the 2 smaller solutions were warranted. The flat roof lowered the height 5-7 feet rather than a gabled roof. Lindenau said the window was glass but it would let in a diffused light. Lindenau noted they had a demolition permit for this week. The commission concerns were the reflective quality of the glass; the R-value of the glass product; the amount of illuminacity coming out; the material conforming ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MinuteS JUNE 15~ 2004 with the lighting ordinance; why secondary .mass couldn't be accomplished for residence "b"; was the property being Condominiumized; the slit piece of glass on the side of the building; Lindenau replied there was very little reflective quality and Steve Hanson's office had a type of this material, which comes from Germany; it is sandblasted and is non-descript. Joyce Allgaier explained this would not read as a window. Lindenau requested 6-8 samples from the German glass company providing different opacities because they did not want a glow coming out or intense light since the owners had an extensive art collection. Lindenau said there was an expense issue and they wanted diversity from the secondary mass; in order to provide the 2 car on-site parking the garage would have to be turned for that 10-foot separation. Lindenau stated it currently had a duplex on it and they would build 2 houses with a condo plat so it would not split into two lOts but would remain a 9,000 square foot lot. Allgaier said the slip Window was not facing the street. Public Comments: 1. Alice Warlow, public, said that she was working on the glass type and the levels went 30%-80%; they were looking at 80% and would not be letting in a lot of light and could go high in a percentage value. 2. Jim Markalunas, public, 624 North Street residence, stated he lived directly across North Street and did not have an issue with the designs but voiced concern for the cottonwood and pine trees on the north boundary in the city right-of-way and hoped they would not be removed or harmed during the construction. Markalunas pointed out the existing fence was about 10-15 feet into the right-of- way on North Street and should be removed. Lindenau replied they met with Aaron Reed and will put up fences around the tree driplines. 3. Ramona Markalunas, public, inquired abOut the. square footage of the houses, if there would decks on any of the buildings and asked the setbacks from North Street. Lindenau replied the total available square footage was 4,080; it was divided equally to two 2,040 square foot residences with a deck in back of residence "b" and the setbacks were 10 feet from North Street and 5 feet from the alley to the garage.' Tygre asked if Jim Markalunas concerns on the fence were addressed. Lindenau replied the fence would be removed from the right-of-way. Bandon Marion asked if they were prepared to specify the degree of opacity for the glass wall. Lindenau replied they did not have the samples back.from Germany and the glass wall function was to allow diffused light into the residence since it did not have a lot of windows. Allgaier noted the commission was judging this as a single application on it's own merits not judging on past or future applications; it 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes JUNE 15, 2004 was to be judged on the context of this neighborhood and this vicinity. Hoefer stated that there were criteria and a criterion must be cited. Marion said he liked the design but disagreed with the window because at night the light would be seen and the secondary mass variance was not necessary; he could not support the variances. John Rowland stated that regardless of the opacity the window it would appear as a white background, he felt it met the criteria and wanted it to be built. Dylan Johns said it met criterion #1 and it was an interesting way of accomplishing the 10% detached mass. Johns said the project could have been brought in as a single-family residence and by splitting the mass in two made the development fit into the context of the neighborhood. Johns said that just limiting glass to simply windows was architecturally limiting and that .was not in line with the goals of the community plan. Johns said the glass does not extend all the way to the ground and he supports the project. Jack Johnson stated the purpose of the standards were to break up the masses of the monster houses and the windows becoming prominent in the west end; he said this project achieves that in another fashion, which is much more inventive and contributes to the architectural fabric of Aspen. Johnson stated the purpose of the standard was to prevent extremely large windows and something that would let light in would also let light out and will need assurances in the resOlution to the degree of opacity for the variance. Roger Haneman said the design was very advanced and inventive; he liked the idea of two smaller houses. Haneman said that he sees the residential design standards intend to limit the inventiveness, since the standards are to be followed he must vote no. Tygre suggested adding a condition for the opacity of the glass. Kruger stated an 80% opaque window would work for her. Lindenau stated they wanted this to work and had no problem with the 80% opacity. MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to approve Resolution #21, Series of 2004, a Variance to the Residential Design Standards for secondary mass and for the requirement that there be no street facing windows between nine (9) and twelve (12) feet forpersonal structures at 633 W. North Street, Lots A, B, and part of C, Original Aspen Townsite with conditon # 1. Prior to sign-off of building permit, the applicant shall demonstrate that the semi-opaque window (for which the variance was granted) on the west facingfaqade of the western most residence meets an 80% minimum ot~aci~. Seconded by 5 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes JUNE 15, 2004 Roger Haneman. Roll call vote: Johnson, yes; Johns, yes; Skadron, yes; Haneman, no; Kruger, yes; Rowland, yes; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 6-1. PUBLIC HEARING: 725 WEST BLEEKER - RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS VARIANCE Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing on 725 West Bleeker residential design standards variance. David Hoefer stated the notice had been provided. Ruth Kruger and Roger Haneman recused themselves. Scott Woodford explained there currently was a driveway entering off of Bleeker Street and requested a variance to keep the driveway entering from.Bleeker. They are proposing to add onto the existing house. The applicants felt that the most appropriate standard that applied to them was "for reasons of fairness related to site-specific constraints". Woodford discussed the parking and delivery issues with the parking department, they could be cleaned up with enforcement and could be cleaned up to have reasonable access to the property and still meet the intent of the residential design guidelines, which is to prevent driveway access from the front when there is an alley. Graeme Means, architect, said they understand the reason for the standard and were not disagreeing with the intent of the standard however it gives the commission the opportunity or authority to vary from that standard if there's unusual conditions, which they feel obviously exist in the alley. Means stated the reason for asking for the variance is the parking situation; it is often congested back there and a different type of parking then people who park for 45 minutes, here the restaurant patrons who run in for 2 minutes feel like they can park anywhere. Means said there are a lot of cars parked back there illegally and if you are trying to get out of a garage and someone's blocking the garage there is potential for conflict. Means noted there were a lot of large construction vehicles parked there for long periods of time and add in the big delivery trucks with all these added together is a very congested situation. Means said the sanitary conditions had dumpsters that were frequently overflowing with garbage in the alley, which attracts animals, and they clean the cooking equipment in the alley with steam and hot grease rtms down the alley. Means said that was a good reason not to put that garage on the alley because of sanitary reasons. Means said they have worked to make it an appropriate design for the neighborhood on Bleeker, the garage is set back 20 feet from the property line and about 40 feet from the curb. The driveway was only one car wide with an oval trellises element over it in the conceptual designs. The current driveway was from Bleeker Street so there would not be an additional Curb cut. 6 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes JUNE 15, 2004 Means presented a letter in support of the driveway remaining on Bleeker from. Tim and Genna Francis the next-door neighbors. Means said that this alley has been a Problem for 20 years and it wasn't fair to Barney and Paula Eaton to say that enforcement will solve the situation; the restaurant is a tough neighbor to live next to. Means said every neighbor on that side of the street has submitted letters of support. Paula Eaton said she understood the alley access for a garage but felt this was a unique situation because the Hickory House was so public with so muchtraffic; she felt uncomfortable having to access the garage from the alley with a baby. Eaton said that the neighbor Lynn who accessed from the alley had a hard time getting in and out of her garage because of the delivery trucks and so much going on starting at 7 in the morning. Eaton said she respected the West End and if they lived On another alley they would use the alley. Steve Skadron asked about the Ann Marcus letter citing complaints to the city along with the applicant and having no enforcement. Woodford replied there were 2 different perceptions on an issue and he said he respects the perception and experience but he .was given the perspective from the city-parking department and that was all he could relate to. Skadron asked where the neighbors parked. Paula Eaton responded that they park on 7th Street and Bleeker Street. Eaton stated the alley was very narrow and if she was trying to back out of the garage she would have a hard time With the Hickory House employee vehicles and the delivery trucks in the alley if she is required to have the garage there. Brandon Marion asked the criterion on grand-fatherization. David Hoefer responded there was no grand-fatherization; when something is changed it must become compliant. Joyce Allgaier stated that it was common to enforce when re- development occurs. Allgaier asked the applicant if they were focusing on criterion #2. Means replied that was the reason or cause of the problem; he said it answers both standards. John Rowland asked if the city can enforce delivery times. Allgaier responded there were delivery hours in 'the commercial core but not in other parts of the city unless it was on a specific development that was unique. Hoefer stated that the practical matter was that it was extremely difficult in terms of manpower to monitor the situation. Hoefer stated that parking in the alleys is an on-going problem. Rowland said the issue should be addressed. No public comments. 7 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes JUNE 15~ 2004 Marion said he really feels for the issue and he had a garage that was always parked in front of but he has seen the enforcement work. MOTION: Brandon Marion moved to approve resolution #22, series 2004for a variance to the residential design'standards that require garages be accessed from an alley where one exists for the residence at 725 West Bleeker Street, legally described as Lots C & D, Block !8, original Aspen Townsite. Seconded by Dylan ~lohns. Roll call vote: Rowland, no; Marion, no; Skadron, no; Johns, yes; Johnson, no; Tygre, no. DENIED 5-1. Discussion of motion: Jack Johnson stated that this was really hard; he understands their position and worked at the Hickory House but Paul can be reasoned with. Johnson said the issue was neighborhood especially with commercial and residences but there was no way he could vote to approve a garage facing Bleeker Street in the West End. PUBLIC HEARING: 310 WEST BLEEKER- RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS VARIANCE Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for 310 West Bleeker. Proof of notice was provided. Sarah Oates distributed 2 letters, 1 in support and the other letter had concerns about height; the height would be measured on natural grade or existing grade, which ever is more restrictive. Oates said this was a residential design standard variance request to waive the two to one floor area penalty for windows, which~penetrate higher than 10 feet above the first finished floor above the street facing faCade. If there is a two hundred square foot room behind-the plate of glass there is a penalty and it' counts for four hundred square feet. The house was built in 1988 as you can see from the elevations and photographs that were provided there ·are windows that meet the criteria for the two to one penalty on Bleeker Street. Oates said the applicant asked the requirement or penalty be waived so that they can capture the square footage and do an addition on the alley side over the garage. Staff did not support the variance application because staff cannot find for the standards or criteria. Jahver Derrington, architect with Charles Cunniff, said they felt the first standard providing an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which development is proposed in .this block on Bleeker that there was no contextual standard established; there were a wide variety of styles of house on that block, which can be seen in the photograph (streetscape - attachment #10). Derrington stated there was no style or pattern and very little in compliance with ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes JUNE 15~ 2004 the residential standards mainly because most of the houses were built prior to the enactment of the residential design standards. Derrington said they don't feel there is any precedence set by that in a contextual manner or sense that would require this house to retroactively comply with the residential design standards enacted some years later after it was built. The house (from the photograph) shows five to six large mature evergreens that were screening the house from the street, which makes the reason for having some sort of a span between nine feet and twelve feet on the glass window fagade facing south toward the street is really irrelevant and not visible. Derrington said they felt it was an arbitrary requirement to put something up there just for the sake of complying with this standard. Derrington said they agreed with standard #2 there were no site specific constraints on this parcel; the proposed addition was on the alley side have been supported by the neighbor across the alley who would be most impacted by that addition of the studio above the garage and was contextual within the design of the original house itself, Derrington said the addition has no effect on the front of the house and the imposition of the penalty of the two-story space on the inside has no relevance to something built on the alley. Derrington said this building was grandfathered and exempted from the requirement of the volume standard in the residential design standards. Oates stated that the commission should understand that everything is existing with the exception on page 13 the addition on top of the garage is what was requested and they were not asking for a variance for that; they were asking for a variance from the volume penalty to capture that square footage to be able to do that addition. Joyce Allgaier stated that they were seeking exemption from the windows that already exist so that they can gain additional floor area to make that addition. Oates said they would not be entitled to any' additional floor area above and beyond anyone else in the neighborhood, just what they are entitled to based upon the design of their building. Derrington said the penalty is applied when they go through zoning review then they don't have the FAR to do the addition over the garage; if they were exempted from that standard because the house was built before the standard was enacted that would allow them to have the additional two hundred square feet that would be slightly under the FAR with that penalty being exempted. Tygre asked if this wouldn't be more appropriately regarded to the Board of Adjustment. Oates replied no because it was not a dimensional requirement; they were entitled to. any square footage that any 6,000 square foot lot was entitled to but they are taking a penalty because of the residential design standards. Allgaier added that when someone comes in with a new proposal to make an addition in the floor area it is measure based upon the regulations that are in place today as well as 9 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes JUNE 15, 2004 height so if those things change over time people are held to using the code that's in place at the time of building permit. No public comments. Roger Haneman said he was fascinated that there was no concern for the reduction of the theoretical secondary mass and he was surprised the residential deSign standards did not simply apply to all structures. Oates said the standard for secondary mass was for all new structures. Han~eman said that the fact that residential design standards applies to all structure not just new structures was surprising; he asked if that was the intent when it was passed. Oates repliedyes, even if the building was built 50 years ago the garage aspect has to comply with the residential design standards. Haneman said they weren't in compliance now and they are increasing the non-compliance and that's not an issue but based upon how the front of the house looks because it was designed that way when the house was built and if they had anticipated adding on 10 years they wouldn't be able to. Oates noted if they had the square footage she could give them a building permit becauSe secondary mass applies to all new structures. Haneman said that the design standards should apply to all structures or not. Allgaier said the pre- existing condition dictates floor area tOday and that was the issue because when floor area is calculated it is based on the regulations in place today. Allgaier said by having those tall windows they are taking a cut of floor area. Skadron asked .the reasoning that these windows count as two times the floor area ratio. Allgaier replied some of the photographs illustrate some of the reasons why those residential design standards were put in place; the West End was loosing its sense of pedestrian scale with monolithic planes of front walls on the street and the sidewalk that had cathedral ceilings inside. From the outside the very tall arching windows were reading as something that did not add to that streetscape, that pedestrian feel; the feeling was knocking out that area between 9 and 12 feet, which would be where the second floor would actually sit it wouldn't feel like such a monolithic plane because of the break. Dylan Johns said that he couldn't find any reason to go against the staff findings; he didn't think this was a very large problem overall for the project itself and there was an easy remedy for it: come into compliance with the design review standards. John Rowland asked if there has been a grandfather clause precedence ever set. Allgaier replied this was a consistent way staff uses the land use code today when someone comes in for a new development. Hoefer stated the land use code would almost be meaningless if everything were grandfathered in. Hoefer said from a 10 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes JUNE 15, 2004 constitutional perspective the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the right of a Municipality to zone. Derrington said one point regarding that standard #1, in evaluating the context as it is used in the criteria, the board may consider the relationship of the proposed development with the adjacent structure, the immediate neighborhood setting, or a broader vicinity, as he mentioned earlier there is no contextual precedent set by this block; it was an eclectic group of buildings and this house has been there for 15 years and they were not changing the streetscape. Derrington. said the design review standards addressed the streetscape and this was well screened by mature evergreen trees, which makes it virtually impossible to see the front of the house except from one certain vantage point directly in front of the entrance. Derrington stated whether or not there would be a possibility if they chose to do so of tearing down the existing faCade and building a newfagade~ which seems rather erroneous in order to get the FAR that they should be allowed by the zoning at the time they built the house. Derrington said sticking something on the front of the building to cover the 9 to 12 foot span, like a girdle, would make little sense but it could be done but what would be the point and how would that add to the experience and ambiance of the neighborhood. Tygre stated item #1 of the criteria was of more concern than item #2; or members of the commission may find that #2 is relevant but these were the standards by which the commission has to evaluate every application and it was up to the individual commissioner to make a finding that this application either does or does not fulfill these standards. MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to approve Resolution #23, series 2004 granting a variance from Section 26.410. 040(D)(3)(a), relating to the window location on the front facade of the house finding that the review elements of criterion #1 and in Section 26.410.020(C) have been met for 310 West Bleeker Street. Seconded by Roger Haneman. Roll call vote: Johnson, no; Johns, no; Haneman, yes; Skadron, no; Kruger, no; Rowland, no; Tygre, no. DENIED 6-1. Discussion: Johnson said that this house and design were great examples of why the standards were put into place originally and seems irrational to grant a variance to a structure that exemplifies exactly what the standards were written for. The commissioners gave their board reports. .Adjopme,d a~ 6:45 pm. ckie Lothian, DepuOj City Clerk 11