Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20041116ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes - November 16~ 2004 COMMENTS ......................................... . .................................................................................... 2 DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ..................................................... 2 1201 RIVERSIDE DRIVE REZONING ............................................................................. 2 FOX CROSSING SUBDIVISION ........................................................................................ 2 ASPEN INSTITUTE SPA AMENDMENT ........................................................................ 7 HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT CODE AMENDMENTS ............................. 10 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes - November 16~ 2004 Ruth Kruger, acting chair, opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission in Sister Cities Meeting Room. Members John Rowland, Jack Johnson, Brandon Marion, Dylan Johns and Ruth Kruger were present. Jasmine Tygre and Steve Skadron were excused. Staff in attendance were: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; James Lindt, Chris Lee, Chris Bendon, Community Development; Brian Flynn, Parks; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMENTS Jack Johnson asked about the LeChef's building. David Hoefer replied that it was being broken up into two spaces. Ruth Kruger asked who was responsible for the sidewalk at the Bavarian; there was a big drop-off at one end. Chris Bendon replied that sidewalks were a public amenity but installed by the developer of the property. Kruger noted the sidewalk stopped in the middle of the property. David Hoefer congratulated Chris Bendon on his appointment as Community Development Department Head. Jackie Lothian reminded the commissioners about the Boards and Commissions party at the Wheeler on December 2nd. The commission chose to postpone the minutes until the next meeting. Jack Johnson requested more about the Chart House on the October 19th Minutes. DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST None stated. PUBLIC HEARING: 1201 RIVERSIDE DRIVE REZONING Ruth Kruger opened the public hearing on the Rezoning for 1201 Riverside Drive. James Lindt stated this was continued from 10/19 and will be continued to 12/7 with new signs posted. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (10/12/04, 11/02/04): FOX CROSSING SUBDIVISION Ruth Kruger opened the continued public hearing for Fox Crossing. Chris Bendon noted this was continued from 11/2/04. Bendon stated that Ellen Sassano from the county had a conflict tonight; now the Fox Crossing does not have to rely on the 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes - November 1C 2004 county TDR program and in fact it doesn't have to have a TDR. Bendon stated that there was language in the resolution that provided that under Section 3. Bendon said the second question raised at the last meeting regarded the open space parcel and the value; Brian Flynn was present to address that issue. Bendon noted that P&Z requested a development chart noting the current development on this property and the square footage proposed was contained on page 3 of the resolution. Bendon said the October 12th memo had the parcels on the map with the old house, north cabin, south cabin, newer house, railroad and garage parcels. The interim step was the 2 lots with the old house, north cabin lot and the south cabin new house lot were eligible for a lot split. Bendon noted the far right column of that Exhibit C had Griffith Lots 1, 2 and 3 and Fox Crossing Lots 1 through 10 plus the Fox Crossing parks parcel. Bendon noted to split Griffith Lot 2 into 2 parcels required growth management development allotment and by doing that each is available for a single-family or duplex. Bendon said the duplexes could be split into 2 single-family residences. Brian Flynn asked if the city and county would jointly own the parcel. Camilla Auger replied that they would give it to the city and county with an open space easement with the Aspen Valley Land Trust. Flynn said that parks and open space have worked to acquire land when they can; this was dedicated for the past 2 years that allowed the formation of the Open Space Board, which has criteria and goals. Flynn said that part of the criteria is met with the acquisition of the Hunter Valley Open Space. Flynn explained the Lani White Trail was next to the Hunter Creek Trail running up that corridor, which protects the scenic corridor with Aspen Valley Land Trust as the third party easement holder who guarantees protection of that parcel. Flynn spoke about the proposal of the trail to Spruce Park, which accesses the Lani White Trail. Spruce Park has a stonewall, bench and dog drinking fountain. Flynn said the parks department was trying to bring in more trails and formalize all the connections to bring people into the Spruce Park area and back out into the wilderness in a very easily identified manner with a little bit of signage. Camilla Auger provided the history of Randall Park noting potentials of critical space along the trails. There was a letter from the Aspen Valley Land Trust in support of the plan. Kruger asked the monetary values of this parcel. Auger said there was an appraisal for $3.7 million. Auger said ifa house were to be built on this parcel it would be built on the flat area and that was the worse place for a house under trail conditions. Jack Johnson asked ifAley Park and the trail through Fox Crossing were part of the proposal. Auger replied that was part of the proposal and the reason that she was doing was doing this project. 3 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes - November 16~ 2004 Auger said that they hoped that more trails would be developed and the weed patch would be transformed into a park for the community. Auger stated the meadow at the center of Fox Crossing would be preserved, which was 9200 square feet and next to it was the old blue Victorian with cabins to be developed as a single-family house. Auger noted these residences would be relatively low density in a high- density area making it a diverse community. Stan Clauson provided a letter from Schmueser, Gordon, Meyer discussing the infrastructure and to the Fire Marshall, Ed VanWalraven, discussing the fire truck turning radius, fire hydrants and sprinkling of houses; this was a subdivision not a PUD and it was fully conforming to all the parameters of the R-6 Zone District. Clauson submitted letters from Lisa Thurston from Hunter Creek Properties; Jon Busch on Race Street; Aspen Valley Land Trust from Martha Cochran indicating the Land Trust obligation regarding the Hunter Valley Way parcel; from Dale Will Pitkin County Open Space and Trails; Clurie Bennis and Mary Griffith. Clauson said the private part of Walnut Street would provide access to 5 lots as well as the Clurie Bennis house on the comer and Walnut would continue out onto Lone Pine Road. Clauson noted the extension of Walnut Street would also include the looping of water mains and infrastructure would be in place. Auger stated that they had approval of the fire department but have been talking with all the neighbors and taking in the suggestions, which have slightly different interests. Auger said this would be an on-going discussion and not a final anything. Public Comments: 1. Robert Zupancis, public, stated that he lived at Race and Walnut. Zupancis liked the through street but wanted to see some temporary ballards at Race Street where it intersects with Spruce. Zupancis voiced concerns for the limited parking in the neighborhood currently and this proposal would add to parking on Walnut, Race, South and Lone Pine. Zupancis requested the construction access be off of Lone Pine. 2. Gretchen Greenwood, public, stated the preservation of the Hunter Valley was great; she noted the neighborhood was becoming crowded. Greenwood voiced concern for the dangerous intersection at South, Gibson and Walnut Streets with no visibility. Greenwood noted Luriski's property was being developed along with this proposal. Greenwood requested the development of permanent on-site parking for this proposal. 3. Ward Hauenstein, public, stated that he lived on Spruce Street; he said it was important to keep traffic away from South Street because there was a bus stop for 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes - November 16~ 2004 small children. Hauenstein requested off-street parking for this project and he said it was best to keep Race Alley two-way. 4. Collen Burrows, public, said Race Alley should remain two-way and she spoke of the density in the neighborhood. 5. LJ Erspamer, public, thanked the developers for coming to their home and wanted to support the neighbors. Auger said a number of things are feasible and agrees with. Clauson noted the code required a construction management plan. Brandon Marion asked if the parking for the trailhead was explored. Clauson replied that the Parks Department did not think that there would be a significant amount of parking from that trailhead but Aley Park would require some parking. Clauson utilized drawings to show the historic nature of the building, the trail and project. Marion asked where the guest parking would be. Clauson responded that it would be on the properties. John Rowland asked what was the mix of housing. Clauson answered there were duplexes sharing floor area. Rowland asked if there was any multi-family. Clauson replied there was no multi-family. Rowland asked if the access for lot 1 was down Race Street within the easement that was the public walkway and asked how wide the easement was. Clauson replied that was correct and the easement was 16 feet. Jack Johnson asked if the historic house would be occupied and if it would be fenced. Auger replied that it was the plan for someone to occupy the house and the cabins. Clauson stated that Gilbert Sanchez was the architect that took the historic house and cabins through conceptual approval with HPC. Auger said that they had not thought of covenants regarding fences prior but they will now. Johnson asked if that was true on the traffic generation count at 9 cars per day per unit. Bendon replied that was a common number used by traffic engineers; he said that was a national average, which counted the mailman as 2 trips. Johnson asked the history on the RR parcel. Bendon replied that it was the Midland Railroad; at the time easements were done with a fee simple process. Johnson asked if the city had long term plans for the trailer park, Gibson and South Street area. Bendon replied there were no capital plans, just minimal improvements of sidewalks, curb and gutter; the city rights-of-way in this area were minimal. Johnson asked if he was correct that the county TDRs were no 5 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes - November 16, 2004 longer an option. Bendon replied that they were city driven TDRs. Johnson asked if there was a restriction in the proposed language that would limit the distance of TDRs. Bendonreplied there were broad criteria but the significance of that preservation parcel could be determined (page 5 of the November 2nd resolution). The identification of the preservation parcel as "private land with preservation value"; the proximity and visibility of the preservation parcel to the City of Aspen; the development rights of that preservation parcel and the uses and intensities and impacts associated with those uses; the location of the development as it comes into the city including the compatibility of the uses; and the preservation of the parcel is encumbered with a legal description so that we know it will not be developed. Dylan Johns asked if the map was the possible TDRs for this site and the scope of what we could see with this project. Bendon replied that map wouldn't limit them; the good part of the TDR program is that parcels are being preserved. Johns asked if the development right was based upon the underlying zoning and what would the square footage be calculated at. Bendon responded the development right did not have to have a prescribed proportion. Kruger asked why Race Street could not be a two-way street. Clauson replied that it was a two-way street now and Race Street has a 14.5-foot pavement base, which continues through the 20-foot right-of-way. Clauson said the question from the fire department was since 14.5-foot was slightly bigger than a traffic lane then Race should be one-way. Kruger asked what the off-street parking requirements were for Race Alley. Bendon replied it was the standard city requirement, which is 2 parking spaces per residences; if there is an accessory dwelling unit then there is another parking space required. Kruger asked if there were any traffic studies for any of the comers. Bendon said that there wasn't enough traffic generated by just this project to justify studies. Clauson said if there was a traffic study then Jim Challier did it. Kruger asked if there was a plan for phasing. Auger responded there was a phasing plan and the neighbors wanted the construction done as soon as possible. Kruger asked if this was the exemption process. Bendon answered this was the exemption process; the re-development of the house on the existing lot requires an administrative growth management approval, which you either deed-restrict the main house or build an accessory dwelling unit or pay cash-in-lieu with credit given to other existing residences on site. Bendon stated the resolutiOn did not resolve whether or not those growth management rights that are being created by the city for that preservation parcel also have that ADU requirement. 6 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes - November 1C 2004 Bendon summed up the P&Z issues as the ADUs; Race Alley; more specific what the subdivision will look like; Walnut Street; how the walkway works through the open space; and the code amendment. MOTION: Brandon Marion moved to continue the public hearing for Fox Crossing to November 30th,' seconded by Jack Johnson. APPROVED. PUBLIC HEARING: ASPEN INSTITUTE SPA AMENDMENT Ruth Kruger opened the public hearing for the Aspen Institute SPA Amendment. David Hoefer stated the notice requirements were met. Amy Guthrie stated that this request was for one building that was not built due to the lack of need for it in the past but they want to improve their ability to host conferences so they want to convert this building allocation into a conference and meeting hall. Guthrie noted this plan was slightly smaller by 1500 square feet, which may be used for the health club for future expansion. The Aspen Institute Campus is not entirely historic but portions of the campus were historic; HPC had a great process with the architect and applicants. Guthrie said that Council will have to approve a GMQS exemption for essential public facilities; the impacts of this will be minimal because many of the conferencees do not bring cars. Jim Curtis, representative for the applicant, introduced Jeff Berkus the architect for the project. Curtis stated that Amy Margerum was here but because of another committement she had to leave. Paul Taddune, attorney, and Bill Lukes were in attendance on behalf of the Pitkin Green Homeowners; Mr. Lukes had to also leave because of another commitment. Jim Curtis said that they will meet with the Pitkin Reserve Homeowners (on the other side of the river) to discuss lighting (interior and exterior). Curtis said they are basically taking a building that was approved in 1991 and changing the use of the building to compliment the existing meeting and dining facilities on the Meadows campus so the whole campus can operate more efficiently. There was a commitment to work with HPC on materials, color and lighting with an HPC meeting scheduled for January 12~ and should be up and running in 2006. Brandon Marion checked the list of properties to make sure that he was not conflicted. ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes - November 1C 2004 Jeff Berkus stated that it has been a pleasure meeting with the Historic Preservation Commission and this has been a group effort to fit the Aspen Campus that respects Herbert Bayer and the International School of Architecture yet provides a fresh voice for the campus. Berkus said the location is between the Wexner Building and the Callaway Center with the pond in front adjacent to the Bayer sculpture. Berkus said they are below the average height limitations from 17 to 28 feet and it will look like it is part of the Aspen Institute. Dylan Johns asked what the current thoughts were on the tennis courts and parking. Jim Curtis said there were about 5-7 peak (local) existing events that happen per year. Curtis said that the overflow parking for those events now occur on Meadows Road; as part of the application there was the possibility of the removal of the 2 tennis courts or landscaping near the courts and continue to use Meadows Road for the 5-7 times a year for overflow parking. Johns asked if there were plans for income modifications or changes in use for the other meeting spaces. Curtis replied there were not plans to change the other 3 meeting spaces; this facility compliments those meeting spaces and allows the accommodation of a larger single conference of 200 to 250 people for sit down dining. Curtis said that the current space can accommodate about 100 people with another 25 people in the overflow dining area. Johns asked how this new space compared with the St. Regis conference space. Bendon answered this space was about ½ the size of the St. Regis space. Jack Johnson asked the occupancy rate of the Meadows. Curtis responded that the summer months of July and August were 100% full when the Institute books rooms on their behalf. Curtis called June the swing month and September and the first part of October range 50% to 60%; the winter months are 50 to 60%. Johnson asked if there was another kitchen. Curtis explained the food service would still be prepared in the Bandar Kitchen and this would not be a full service kitchen. This building would not be used every day so there would not be a need to replicate two full kitchens on the Institute property. Johnson asked about the 1991 approval. Curtis replied the space was at 10,700 square feet with 12 units. Johnson asked what happened to those allotments. Curtis replied they vanished. Johnson inquired about other options to accomplish this project rather than the SPA Amendment; other ways to change the 1991 approval for 12 lodge units into 2004 meeting space. Guthrie said it was an essential public facility so them was no competition or scoring process. Bendon said the ability to do this was as an essential public facility. John Rowland asked if the material was pre-cast concrete. Berkus replied yes that it was very much the same material as the other buildings. Rowland asked what 8 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes - November 16~ 2004 distinguishing forms were on this building. Berkus replied that the forms were a little more responsive to the human condition and more dynamic modernism being more light and airy than the structures on this property. Rowland inquired about green architecture and solar being incorporated into the project. Berkus responded that they were very interested in the green architecture and the building would be looked at across the country but they were not sure if it would be solar or geo- thermal. Johnson asked if this went to the Housing Office for employee generation. Guthrie replied that it did not go to the Housing Authority because it was an essential public facility, which was the reason affordable housing was not addressed in the last SPA and they will be using existing staff from the Bandar Center and job sharing with other lodges and facilities in town; they do not plan to increase employees. Kruger asked what an underwater skylight was. Berkus replied that was in the last version and were no longer doing that even though they were still doing the water element. Kruger stated that this was fabulous. Public Comments: 1. Karen Wang, public, stated that she was a Pitkin Reserve Homeowner and this was a wonderful project. Ms. Wang said her concerns were the lighting, screening and landscaping. Curtis replied the landscaping on that edge would be discussed on November 30th and invited Ms. Wang to that meeting. Curtis said they did not want to do further damage to the slope by going down the slope; they will look at where to put screen landscaping with minimal damage to the existing slope condition. Berkus stated the lighting would be kept away from the glass and there would not be any lighting on the face of the building. Berkus said there was less glass than with the hotel rooms. 2. Fred Pearce, public, said he represents a homeowner near Pitkin Reserve. Pearce asked if the 1991 approved building could be built today if this plan doesn't happen. Curtis replied yes; Amy Margerum kept the vested rights for that building alive. MOTION: Brandon Marion moved to extend the meeting 10 minutes; dack dohnson seconded. All in favor, APPROVED. Johns asked if this was the only time that P&Z would see this application. Guthrie responded that HPC would continue to work with the applicant on the design as well as the Parks Department. Johns requested the landscaping plan prior to City Council. Berkus said there would be a model of the building at some point. 9 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes - November 16~ 2004 Johnson said that he doubted that this building would not generate more employees but because it was the Aspen Institute he was willing to overlook it. Kruger asked why Amy presented this application. Bendon responded that she was most familiar with the project and Community Development was down a planner. Kruger asked if there were top of slope issues. Guthrie answered it was more than 100 feet from the river. Kruger asked the timeline for the building to begin and finish. Curtis replied they planned to excavate in April and May of 2005 and hope to open June 2006. Kruger said it looked like a great project as long as they were sensitive to the slope and neighbors; Kruger wanted the Tennis Courts to remain. MOTION: Brandon Marion moved to approve Resolution (437, series 2004 recommending City Council approve an amendment to the Aspen Meadows SPA and an amendment to the Aspen Institute's GMQS exemption for an essential public facility for the previously approved lodge building to be constructed as a conference and meeting hall at 845 Meadows Road and to retain the tennis courts. Dylan Johns seconded. Roll call vote: Johnson, yes; Rowland, yes; Johns, yes; Marion, yes; Kruger, yes. APPROVED 5-0. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (11/02/04): HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT CODE AMENDMENTS Kruger opened the public hearing the public hearing for the Historic Landmark Code Amendment. Amy Guthrie stated this was continued from 11/2 and it was a clean up of some sections of the Historic Preservation Ordinance. Guthrie said the first thing to be addressed was to amend Section 26.415.050, Rescinding Designation and 26.415.110, benefits to read as follows. The purpose of this amendment is to clarify that HPC retains jurisdiction over vacant lots created through a Historic Landmark Lot Split in order to ensure compatibility with the affected historic resource. Guthrie said that the UBC has been replaced by the IBC and that language will be replaced throughout the ordinance. Guthrie said on page 4 of the memo were the financial benefits and she added to the historic transferable development rights. MOTION: Jack Johnson moved to adopt Resolution #38, series of 2004, recommending City Council approve amendments to the Municipal Code related to Historic Preservation. Brandon Marion seconded. Roll call vote: Rowland, yes; Johns, yes; Johnson, yes; Marion, yes; Kruger, yes. APPROVED 5-0. Mee.ti~g a~o~ar~, ~! at 7:20 p.m. J~c-k~e Lot~i~, Deputy City Clerk 10