Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20050412 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes - ADril12. 2005 MINUTES .................................................................................................................2 DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ............................................... 2 LODGE AT ASPEN MOUNTAIN CONCEPTUAL PUD AND TIMESHARE.... 2 530 and 532 WEST HOPKINS COURTHOUSE VIEWPLANE EXEMPTION .... 3 1560 SIL VERKING DRIVE - VARIANCES FROM BUILDING ORIENTATION AND SECONDARY MASS RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS ........................................................................................................... 6 1 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes - ADril12. 2005 Jasmine Tygre opened the special Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting in the Library at 4:40 p.m. Commission Members Brian Speck, Steve Skadron, Dylan Johns (recused for 1560 Si1verking) and Jasmine Tygre were present. Jack Johnson, Ruth Kruger, and John Rowland were excused for the Lodge at Aspen Mountain. Brandon Marion was excused. Staff in attendance were James Lindt, Community Development and Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. MINUTES MOTION: Dylan John moved to approve the minutes from February 15, 2005; seconded by Steve Skadron. Approved 3-0 (Jasmine abstained). DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Ruth Kruger, Jack Johnson and John Rowland were conflicted on the Lodge. Dylan Johns was conflicted on 1560 Si1verking Variances. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (04/05/05): LODGE AT ASPEN MOUNTAIN CONCEPTUAL PUD AND TIMESHARE Jasmine Tygre opened the continued hearing on the Lodge at Aspen Mountain for the winter street maintenance plan. James Lindt noted the remainder of the project would be heard on May 10th. Lindt distributed the winter maintenance proposal from Schmueser with a few options. Lindt said the options proposed by the applicant were (1) to provide funding for an additional streets department employee and equipment; (2) to maintain South Aspen Street themselves and to provide additional sanding and plowing on South Aspen Street and (3) to use a chemical deicer (mag-chloride) for the ice problem. Staff reviewed these options and the city engineer said mag-chloride was the best option to keep ice off of South Aspen Street or the funding for an additional employee. The city engineer did not desire the applicant taking over the maintenance of South Aspen. Sunny Vann said the street had the capacity to carry the traffic generated; the winter conditions reduce the functionality of the street to a point where safety related issues arise with the street in the current configuration. Vann said they tried to design this facility to minimize traffic on South Aspen Street. Vann said the long term solution may come before this project reaches final approvals; they were looking for a recommendation from P&Z to pass along to City Council. Jay Hammond, Schmueser, stated that the project would fund a partial person to maintain the street as a short term solution. Vann said this area was part of the master plan for lodging at the base of the mountain. Vann noted the street was at a steep grade. 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes - ADril12. 2005 Skadron asked what the city position was on the use of mag-chloride. Lindt replied that it was not allowed. Dylan Johns asked if all chemicals were not allowed. Lindt replied all chemicals were not allowed; only sand was allowed. Johns asked the boundaries of the district. Vann replied that most of the street improvements were on the west side of South Aspen Street and both sides of Juan Street. Tygre asked if the improvement district was voluntary. Lindt replied yes, most of the time. Jay Hammond stated that you can force membership in an improvement district legally but it almost never happens. Joyce Allgaier said the heart of the entire issue was in the criteria for judging the PUD. Allgaier said there were technical maintenance issues for P&Z to comment on. Lindt stated that Nick Adeh and Jerry Nye recommended the use of mag- chloride or imbedded chemical deicers, which would release as vehicles rolled over them used to make South Aspen Street safer and increased maintenance in the short term to make the street safer. No public comments. The commission discussed the use of chemical deicers, imbedding the chemical deicers and ifthere was enough traffic to trigger that imbedded deicer. Johns said it was possible to make this street safe if increased maintenance works then great but there should be flexibility options available. Skadron said that he needed more information. Brian Speck asked ifthere were any examples of imbedded chemical deicers in the city. Lindt replied he did not think there were any examples in the surrounding communities or the city. Speck said the safety issue was more important than the mag-chloride possible risks. Speck wanted more information on the environmental effects of mag-chloride. Tygre said she had no strong opinions on this issue. MOTION: Dylan Johns moved to continue the public hearing on the Lodge at Aspen Mountain to May ](jh; seconded by Brian Speck. All infavor; approved. PUBLIC HEARING: 530 and 532 WEST HOPKINS COURTHOUSE VIEWPLANE EXEMPTION Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing on the Court House view plane exemption for the Conner Cabins. Proof of notice was provided. Jack Johnson, Ruth Kruger and John Rowland joined the commission. 3 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes - ADril12. 2005 James Lindt explained the request was for a Mountain View plane exemption to construct 31 foot tall expansions to each of the Conner Cabin sites; the 2 western most cabin sites were subject to the view plane review. P&Z was the final reviewing authority on this view plane review. The 3 existing cabins would be converted into office space and single family residences would be constructed on the rear of each of the cabin properties. The applicant provided photo simulations of what the property would look like. Staff believed that there were certain view planes were already obstructed like St. Mary's Church and the Aspen Plaza Building (comer of Hunter and Hopkins). Staffrecommended approval since the view plane was already obstructed. Mitch Haas and Michael Noda represented the applicant, Greg Hills with Austin Lawrence Partners. Haas spoke about the neglected property and thought about this as a rescue effort. Haas said HPC looked at the historic original character of the buildings and there was a separation between the restored and new buildings. Michael Noda, Oz Architecture, said the new architecture fit in with the town area of Aspen; they worked with HPC and pushed back the third floor and were 15 feet below the 46 foot height limit of the commercial core. Noda said there was half the FAR and it was important to keep the miners cabins. Noda said there were photo simulations in the booklet of the view plane. Haas reiterated they were 15 feet below the allowed height limit and half of the FAR allowed. Haas explained that this project falls within the same view plane that the rectory was in and the illustrations show a great effort to not over build the project. Tygre reminded the commission and members of the public that P&Z had a very specific review - Mountain View Plane. Jack Johnson asked for a review of the Mountain View Plane. Lindt replied there were 2 view planes discussed from the courthouse steps and to the east of the Court House with the origination point was between 5 and 6 feet. Haas also explained view plane reference 1 and 2 from the packet materials; the view planes overlap. Michael Noda utilized the photo simulation of the view plane. Ruth Kruger asked how tall the Aspen Plaza Building was. Lindt replied it was 3 stories but did not know the height. Dylan Johns asked what view plane 2 was aimed at. Lindt replied it was cocked to the east of Little Nell. John Rowland asked if there was a reason a roof plan was not submitted and what type of elevator system was being proposed. Haas replied that it will fit within the roof plan. 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes - ADril12. 2005 Public Comments: 1. Toni Kronberg, public, said that she supported development but the Aspen Area Community Plan talked about preserving the small town views. Kronberg said this was a protected view plane and she spoke about all of the building in town blocking the light and sunshine. Kronberg asked for story poles and said that this project was in the protected view plane. 2. An unidentified gentleman, public, spoke in favor of the view plane exemption. 3. Patsy Hicks, public, stated that she represented the Concept 600 and spoke against the view plane exemption. 4. Claude Conner, public, said that he had a vested interest in this project and he did not remember anyone asking his grandmother's permission to build in front of her house when the buildings across the street were built. Conner said that the two western most lots 530 and 532 are no higher than the new employee housing built by St. Mary's Church; he said the trade off was that everybody benefits from this project going through. Conner encouraged passing this project. MOTION: Brain Speck moved to approve a Mountain View Plane exemption from the two designated Court House View Planes to allow for the construction of a thirty-one foot tall addition to each of the two westernmost Conner Cabin properties located at 530 and 532 East Hopkins Avenue, on the east 7'6" of Lot P, and all of Lots Q and R, Block 93, City and Town site of Aspen. Seconded by John Rowland. Roll call vote: Johns, no; Johnson, no; Skadron, no; Rowland, yes; Kruger, no; Speck, yes; Tygre, no. Motion failed, 5-2. Discussion of motion: Johnson stated that he could not support the motion because he felt it should come under PUD. Skadron said there was not enough information. Allgaier said there was evidence of where the view plane was located but asked ifthere was a likelihood of redevelopment to occur to reopen the view plane. Johnson asked how many feet does the building go into the view plane. Haas replied it was either 11 or 13 feet depending on the view plane. Kruger said that she was conflicted. Johns said that view plane 1 has a negligible impact because of the rectory addition and view plane 2 was confusing. Rowland said he felt the view plane was violated in many occasions and this was not an adequate tool for urban design. Rowland would support the decision of staff based on the criterion. Tygre said that she agreed with Dylan on view plane I but was concerned about view plane 2 and without further evidence she found it unacceptable. Lindt stated that a story pole could be placed on the site. Kruger asked if the vitality or the loss of 10 feet of view plane was more important. 5 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes - ADril12. 2005 Haas said they would supply additional photos and story poles on the site. MOTION: Jack Johnson moved to reconsider the Mountain View Plane for 530 and 532 East Hopkins to provide additional materials; seconded by Steve Skadron. Roll call vote: Rowland, yes; Speck, yes; Skadron, yes; Kruger, yes; Johns, yes; Johnson, yes; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 7-0. MOTION: Steve Skadron moved to continue the Mountain View Plane for 530 and 532 East Hopkins to April 19, 2005; Dylan Johns seconded. All in Favor, 7-0. PUBLIC HEARING: 1560 SILVERKlNG DRIVE - VARIANCES FROM BUILDING ORIENTATION AND SECONDARY MASS RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing on 1560 Si1verking variances. The notice and mailing were in order and posted. Dylan Johns recused himself. MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to extend the meeting to 7:15pm; seconded by John Rowland. All infavor, APPROVED. James Lindt stated the requested variances were from Building Orientation and Secondary Mass Residential Design Standards. The front fa9ade was off go from being parallel to the street and the secondary mass was not met. Lindt noted many other residences in the neighborhood did not meet the secondary mass so this residence was in context with the neighborhood. Keith Howard was the representative for the applicant; Briston Peterson and Rebecca were the duplex owners. Howard explained the lot was on a curve and they were asking for a variance of 42 inches. Howard said the reason they were asking for the go variance was to perfectly align with Pyramid Peak. Peterson added that they wanted to be sensitive that the building parallels the grade of the mountain side to minimize the impact of scaring on the hillside; this proposal parallels the elevations as the mountain goes up and will not obstruct the views of the neighbor to the west. The structure steps into the hill and was located 75 feet from the street. Jack Johnson asked how the existing structure was orientated to the street. Howard replied that it was on the go angle also. No public comments. 6 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes - ADril12. 2005 MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to approve Resolution #15, Series of 2005, approving variances from the building orientation and secondary mass residential design standards to construct a duplex at 1560 Silverking Drive meeting both criteria. Seconded by Brian Speck. Roll call vote: Johnson, yes; Skadron, yes; Speck, yes; Kruger, yes; Rowland, yes; Tygre, yes. All infavor, APPROVED 6-0. Meeting adjourned at 7:15pm. 7 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes - ADril12. 2005 MINUTES .................................................................................................................2 DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ...............................................2 LODGE AT ASPEN MOUNTAIN CONCEPTUAL PUD AND TIMESHARE.... 2 530 and 532 WEST HOPKINS COURTHOUSE VIEWPLANE EXEMPTION .... 3 1560 SIL VERKING DRIVE - VARIANCES FROM BUILDING ORIENTATION AND SECONDARY MASS RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS ........................................................................................................... 6 1 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes - ADril12. 2005 Jasmine Tygre opened the special Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting in the Library at 4:40 p.m. Commission Members Brian Speck, Steve Skadron, Dylan Johns (recused for 1560 Silverking) and Jasmine Tygre were present. Jack Johnson, Ruth Kruger, and John Rowland were excused for the Lodge at Aspen Mountain. Brandon Marion was excused. Staff in attendance were James Lindt, Community Development and Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. MINUTES MOTION: Dylan John moved to approve the minutes from February 15, 2005; seconded by Steve Skadron. Approved 3-0 (Jasmine abstained). DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Ruth Kruger, Jack Johnson and John Rowland were conflicted on the Lodge. Dylan Johns was conflicted on 1560 Silverking Variances. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (04/05/05): LODGE AT ASPEN MOUNTAIN CONCEPTUAL PUD AND TIMESHARE Jasmine Tygre opened the continued hearing on the Lodge at Aspen Mountain for the winter street maintenance plan. James Lindt noted the remainder of the project would be heard on May 10th. Lindt distributed the winter maintenance proposal from Schmueser with a few options. Lindt said the options proposed by the applicant were (1) to provide funding for an additional streets department employee and equipment; (2) to maintain South Aspen Street themselves and to provide additional sanding and plowing on South Aspen Street and (3) to use a chemical deicer (mag-chloride) for the ice problem. Staff reviewed these options and the city engineer said mag-chloride was the best option to keep ice off of South Aspen Street or the funding for an additional employee. The city engineer did not desire the applicant taking over the maintenance of South Aspen. Sunny Vann said the street had the capacity to carry the traffic generated; the winter conditions reduce the functionality of the street to a point where safety related issues arise with the street in the current configuration. Vann said they tried to design this facility to minimize traffic on South Aspen Street. Vann said the long term solution may come before this project reaches final approvals; they were looking for a recommendation from P&Z to pass along to City Council. Jay Hammond, Schmueser, stated that the project would fund a partial person to maintain the street as a short term solution. Vann said this area was part of the master plan for lodging at the base of the mountain. Vann noted the street was at a steep grade. 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes - ADril12. 2005 Skadron asked what the city position was on the use of mag-chloride. Lindt replied that it was not allowed. Dylan Johns asked if all chemicals were not allowed. Lindt replied all chemicals were not allowed; only sand was allowed. Johns asked the boundaries of the district. Vann replied that most of the street improvements were on the west side of South Aspen Street and both sides of Juan Street. Tygre asked if the improvement district was voluntary. Lindt replied yes, most of the time. Jay Hammond stated that you can force membership in an improvement district legally but it almost never happens. Joyce Allgaier said the heart of the entire issue was in the criteria for judging the PUD. Allgaier said there were technical maintenance issues for P&Z to comment on. Lindt stated that Nick Adeh and Jerry Nye recommended the use of mag- chloride or imbedded chemical deicers, which would release as vehicles rolled over them used to make South Aspen Street safer and increased maintenance in the short term to make the street safer. No public comments. The commission discussed the use of chemical deicers, imbedding the chemical deicers and if there was enough traffic to trigger that imbedded deicer. Johns said it was possible to make this street safe if increased maintenance works then great but there should be flexibility options available. Skadron said that he needed more information. Brian Speck asked ifthere were any examples of imbedded chemical deicers in the city. Lindt replied he did not think there were any examples in the surrounding communities or the city. Speck said the safety issue was more important than the mag-chloride possible risks. Speck wanted more information on the environmental effects of mag-chloride. Tygre said she had no strong opinions on this issue. MOTION: Dylan Johns moved to continue the public hearing on the Lodge at Aspen Mountain to May ](jh; seconded by Brian Speck. All infavor; approved. PUBLIC HEARING: 530 and 532 WEST HOPKINS COURTHOUSE VIEWPLANE EXEMPTION Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing on the Court House view plane exemption for the Conner Cabins. Proof of notice was provided. Jack Johnson, Ruth Kruger and John Rowland joined the commission. 3 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes - ADril12. 2005 James Lindt explained the request was for a Mountain View plane exemption to construct 31 foot tall expansions to each of the Conner Cabin sites; the 2 western most cabin sites were subject to the view plane review. P&Z was the final reviewing authority on this view plane review. The 3 existing cabins would be converted into office space and single family residences would be constructed on the rear of each of the cabin properties. The applicant provided photo simulations of what the property would look like. Staff believed that there were certain view planes were already obstructed like St. Mary's Church and the Aspen Plaza Building (comer of Hunter and Hopkins). Staff recommended approval since the view plane was already obstructed. Mitch Haas and Michael Noda represented the applicant, Greg Hills with Austin Lawrence Partners. Haas spoke about the neglected property and thought about this as a rescue effort. Haas said HPC looked at the historic original character of the buildings and there was a separation between the restored and new buildings. Michael Noda, Oz Architecture, said the new architecture fit in with the town area of Aspen; they worked with HPC and pushed back the third floor and were 15 feet below the 46 foot height limit of the commercial core. Noda said there was half the FAR and it was important to keep the miners cabins. Noda said there were photo simulations in the booklet of the view plane. Haas reiterated they were 15 feet below the allowed height limit and half of the FAR allowed. Haas explained that this project falls within the same view plane that the rectory was in and the illustrations show a great effort to not over build the project. Tygre reminded the commission and members of the public that P&Z had a very specific review - Mountain View Plane. Jack Johnson asked for a review of the Mountain View Plane. Lindt replied there were 2 view planes discussed from the courthouse steps and to the east of the Court House with the origination point was between 5 and 6 feet. Haas also explained view plane reference 1 and 2 from the packet materials; the view planes overlap. Michael Noda utilized the photo simulation of the view plane. Ruth Kruger asked how tall the Aspen Plaza Building was. Lindt replied it was 3 stories but did not know the height. Dylan Johns asked what view plane 2 was aimed at. Lindt replied it was cocked to the east of Little Nell. John Rowland asked if there was a reason a roof plan was not submitted and what type of elevator system was being proposed. Haas replied that it will fit within the roof plan. 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes - ADril12. 2005 Public Comments: 1. Toni Kronberg, public, said that she supported development but the Aspen Area Community Plan talked about preserving the small town views. Kronberg said this was a protected view plane and she spoke about all of the building in town blocking the light and sunshine. Kronberg asked for story poles and said that this project was in the protected view plane. 2. An unidentified gentleman, public, spoke in favor of the view plane exemption. 3. Patsy Hicks, public, stated that she represented the Concept 600 and spoke against the view plane exemption. 4. Claude Conner, public, said that he had a vested interest in this project and he did not remember anyone asking his grandmother's permission to build in front of her house when the buildings across the street were built. Conner said that the two western most lots 530 and 532 are no higher than the new employee housing built by St. Mary's Church; he said the trade off was that everybody benefits from this project going through. Conner encouraged passing this project. MOTION: Brain Speck moved to approve a Mountain View Plane exemption from the two designated Court House View Planes to allow for the construction of a thirty-one foot tall addition to each of the two westernmost Conner Cabin properties located at 530 and 532 East Hopkins Avenue, on the east 7'6" of Lot P, and all of Lots Q and R, Block 93, City and Town site of Aspen. Seconded by John Rowland. Roll call vote: Johns, no; Johnson, no; Skadron, no; Rowland, yes; Kruger, no; Speck, yes; Tygre, no. Motionfailed,5-2. Discussion of motion: Johnson stated that he could not support the motion because he felt it should come under PUD. Skadron said there was not enough information. Allgaier said there was evidence of where the view plane was located but asked if there was a likelihood of redevelopment to occur to reopen the view plane. Johnson asked how many feet does the building go into the view plane. Haas replied it was either 11 or 13 feet depending on the view plane. Kruger said that she was conflicted. Johns said that view plane 1 has a negligible impact because of the rectory addition and view plane 2 was confusing. Rowland said he felt the view plane was violated in many occasions and this was not an adequate tool for urban design. Rowland would support the decision of staff based on the criterion. Tygre said that she agreed with Dylan on view plane 1 but was concerned about view plane 2 and without further evidence she found it unacceptable. Lindt stated that a story pole could be placed on the site. Kruger asked if the vitality or the loss of 10 feet of view plane was more important. 5 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes - ADril12. 2005 Haas said they would supply additional photos and story poles on the site. MOTION: Jack Johnson moved to reconsider the Mountain View Plane for 530 and 532 East Hopkins to provide additional materials; seconded by Steve Skadron. Roll call vote: Rowland, yes; Speck, yes; Skadron, yes; Kruger, yes; Johns, yes; Johnson, yes; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 7-0. MOTION: Steve Skadron moved to continue the Mountain View Plane for 530 and 532 East Hopkins to April 19, 2005; Dylan Johns seconded. All in Favor, 7-0. PUBLIC HEARING: 1560 SIL VERKlNG DRIVE - VARIANCES FROM BUILDING ORIENTATION AND SECONDARY MASS RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing on 1560 Silverking variances. The notice and mailing were in order and posted. Dylan Johns recused himself. MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to extend the meeting to 7: 15pm; seconded by John Rowland. All infavor, APPROVED. James Lindt stated the requested variances were from Building Orientation and Secondary Mass Residential Design Standards. The front fa9ade was off go from being parallel to the street and the secondary mass was not met. Lindt noted many other residences in the neighborhood did not meet the secondary mass so this residence was in context with the neighborhood. Keith Howard was the representative for the applicant; Briston Peterson and Rebecca were the duplex owners. Howard explained the lot was on a curve and they were asking for a variance of 42 inches. Howard said the reason they were asking for the go variance was to perfectly align with Pyramid Peak. Peterson added that they wanted to be sensitive that the building parallels the grade of the mountain side to minimize the impact of scaring on the hillside; this proposal parallels the elevations as the mountain goes up and will not obstruct the views of the neighbor to the west. The structure steps into the hill and was located 75 feet from the street. Jack Johnson asked how the existing structure was orientated to the street. Howard replied that it was on the go angle also. No public comments. 6 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes - ADril12. 2005 MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to approve Resolution #15, Series of 2005, approving variances from the building orientation and secondary mass residential design standards to construct a duplex at 1560 Silverking Drive meeting both criteria. Seconded by Brian Speck. Roll call vote: Johnson, yes; Skadron, yes; Speck, yes; Kruger, yes; Rowland, yes; Tygre, yes. All infavor, APPROVED 6-0. Meeting adjourned at 7:15pm. 7