Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19871222 x..V 10 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 22. 1987 Chairman Welton Anderson called the meeting to order at 5:00 pm. ROLL CALL Answering .roll call were Welton Anderson, David White, Roger Hunt, and Michael Herron. Jim Colombo and Jasmine Tygre were excused. Mari Peyton and Ramona Markalunas arrived shortly after roll call. COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS There were none. STAFF COMMENTS There were none. PUBLIC HEARING GMP AMENDED SCORING 700 SOUTH GALENA Welton opened the public hearing. Cindy Houben of the Planning Department: The 700 South Galena proj ect is requesting an amendment to their growth management scoring based on some changes that they have made in their project. I have rescored their project based on the changes and propose that the Planning commission accept the scoring that is proposed by the Planning Office. The difference in the scoring really relates to volume features of the project. Roger: In my review the only architecture and site design. does not change. Larry Yaw: This is a simplified site plan showing the 4 units which are in duplex townhouse configuration. This is Galena Street along here. This line is the present configuration. The site is a little over 18,000sqft and each unit is 3,000sqft for a total FAR of 12,000sqft which is about 6,000sqft below the allowed FAR. significant change I see is in the The technical aspect of it really The site plan is made to maximize the public benefit and the private benefit of the open space. This open space along Galena Street being that which lends itself to the streetscape on the public side and the area in here combined by the units and the site which has a steep embankment in here is for the use of the ownership. The site slopes about 17 ft up from this point to this point. This drawing shows a landscape configuration and the entry to the individual units. The site is entered from a pedestrian standpoint through a little gateway here as it were. The site along here is retained with landscaping and retaining walls. This is the private part of the site which is a large - PZM12.22.87 grass area with retainage and planting in here. related and intended for use the people here. It is directly This site has been stabilized with a retaining wall. The underground garage which has 16 parking spaces which is 4 in excess of the 12 required. We have 12 bedrooms now which has been reduced by 4. We enter the parking at this point. The site is generously landscaped using Ash at this point and low shrubb- ery in this area and then a lot of Colorado Spruce and Aspen in the back area. This drawing shows the parking garage configuration--again entering at this point into the garage. There are 16 spaces. The little red line here shows the footprint of the buildings above. The pink are elevators and each unit is served individ- ually by the elevator from the garage. That helps in an energy sense as well because it keeps the traffic from going in and out from the front entry. Floor plans are lower level, mid level and upper level. level has the open space floor entry. Lower Roger: Where you show what looks like tile cross-hatch there, that is open to the outside? Larry: No, it is not. It is covered. But open to the outside from here and from the entry along the front. Roger: Larry: Roger: It is covered by the building. Yes. In other words it is open to the outside. Larry: Right. There is one bedroom at this level and the elevator. On the mid level there are two master bedrooms and the upper level so it can reach the view which is generally this way toward Shadow Mountain. A living room, dining and kitchen again served by the elevator from the parking garage. The buildings are 2 and 1/2 levels above the street grade. The red line shows the 28 foot height limit and we are below that. Again the upper level living spaces are here to capture the view and generally remove themselves from the streetscape. We have employed a curved roof form to get a little more volume to that and as well because the curved roof form like a gable form disappears from view more quickly than does a gable roof line. The materials used in this building are a copper roof form. That will be tainted so that it reaches its oxidized non-glare state. The form and the pitch of the roof are important because of some of the buildings above it so we think the roofscape and what they 2 PZM12.22.87 see is an important element of design. the building are brick and sandstone. brick which has had curved edges. Boogie's. The basic materials of The brick is a bevelled Materials are not unlike The building is articulated with glass along the top where the view is and a kind of division of glass here at mid point of the building then a copper roof which is curved. The parking area which goes down under the building will be landscaped. Parry Harvey: This area is employed as an internal entry space and a private space so that in our opinion the use of the site did not give as much open space to the public domain as the new simplified site plan. Another reason we changed is in order to keep under the height limits here, we had to combat spaces from unit to unit which we thought eventually could be problematic. The entries to the parking are similar. Those are the essential differences. The other difference is that these buildings come closer to the edge of the setback than the new ones. This drawing of the new parking garage uses the. site in such a way that it provides a better transition from the density of the PUD which is on the continental side to the looser older fabric of the individual houses on the hillside. Roger: I have one statement about the site design that concerns me a little bit. That is your treatment of the ramps compared to the old one. What sort of method are you going to have for keeping the ramp clear of the snow and ice? Parry: It will be heated. Roger: Given the characteristic of the street and where people want to go out of this project, it really doesn't make much sense to make a 90% entry to the street. The entry people are going to go up Galena street from this project. Parry: We wanted to have a pausing--enough plat area in here to come up and pause and look both ways before entering traffic. Roger: But I see an awful lot of sharp curves there which, to me, is just not a very practical way of doing this thing. Parry: Show me what you are thinking about in terms of how it should be. Roger: You will notice in the other one it just sort of came straight out. I understand that you are probably closer down to this end of the project and this building lower that that is probably not practical. 3 PZM12.22.87 Parry: The transformer is there and the Tippler' s driveway is there. We didn't want to get into that. Roger: My thinking is if you could cut that corner to make a little longer radius corner. all around here, it would seem to me a lot more practical way of doing it. That is really my only comment about the site design is that does not seem very practical with all those corners. Larry: It is made wider so that a car can actually make a curve in there rather than have to take the angles. But it could also be curved. We thought it was adequate and a fair amount of expense comes from big curved retaining walls. Roger: I think first of all minimizing that 90% turn on the inside so that cars coming in don't have to make this crazy bunch of s turns trying to get in there. Traffic is probably going to come downhill and come from downhill. Larry: That is a good comment. cindy: Jay Hammond was concerned about the grade. thought it was adequate. But he Welton: We can either rescore this or have a motion to accept the Planning Office's scoring. MOTION Roger: I would move that we accept the Planning Office's score. David seconded the motion. Mari: When we first did this scoring for this part of the project, we were considering this as well as the other 4 units as part of the lodge. What are we doing now? Just this? Alan: Yes. You are just being asked to look at this portion. It is not clear whether the residential units in the lodge will in fact continue as part of the project at all. They may be abandoned. Welton then asked for public comment. There was none and Welton closed the public hearing on this section of the GMP amended scoring. All voted in favor of the motion. . ".'"...- 4 PZM12.22.87 700 SOUTH GALENA cindy: I spoke to Patsy Newberry, the planning official about the correct address for this project and it looks like it is out of sequence on the address maps for that area of town. I would like to propose that one of the conditions of approval is that we get that clarified. The request for amendment on the 700 South Galena project is pretty simple in regard to the actual changes in the buildings. The number of bedrooms has been reduced. When the proj ect was approved in 1985 it was approved with 2 _mumble with 4 bedrooms in each unit. The applicants are requesting a change to 2 bedrooms in each unit. And also that the parking facility be relative to these bedrooms so the total amount of parking spaces be reduced. The other change that I mentioned briefly before is that they are requesting that we calculate the height of the structure from the street grade from whatever the finished grade of Galena is. I have no problem with that. When you look back at the 1974 maps for that area Galena was 15 inches higher than it is now. We are recommending that the height should be calculated from the street grade as it is finished on Galena. The main changes that we see there is the architectural design and site plan for the structures. MOTION Roger: I move to recommend approval of the PUD amendments for the South Galena Project with the conditions 1 and 2 being the same as in the Planning Office memo dated December 22, 1987 (attached in records) with the addition that the street address be resolved by what the Building Department or whomever is in authority to do that. And #2 that the treatment of the driveway is improved to reduce some of the radii entering the project and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. And I further move to forward the scoring to the city council with the recommendation to approve it. David seconded the motion with all in favor. SUMMIT PLACE PUD Cindy: The Summit Place Project that is proposed is a much better project than what is already approved. However I think that there is a confusion as far as the past record with regard to what was approved on the site with regard to setbacks. 5 PZM12.22.87 John sarpa, Senior vice President for Hadid: This is our first time before you all. We will have a couple of more opportun- ities. I wanted to have the opportunity to be a part of this first interaction and its pertinence to the site we are about to take. From the overall picture we wanted to do 2 things. The properties have sat for so long with talk, talk, talk. So as you may know the first thing we took on was the old continental Inn to make it look a little bit better. We opened that a few days ago. These two sites are the same. We went in and looked at them to see what could be done and, as you are about to see, our conclusion on this site was that it was in shambles. The construction was so poor and the design was so poor that it really made more sense to start over. That was clearly not our easiest option in terms of putting something out and on the market. That was our motivation because the 2 units were pretty well done. And it would have made this process a lot easier if we were just renovating something. But they are bad news. There is just no way of getting around that. I don't know if you have ever been in them but it reminds me of the place where they have crazy walls and mirrors. It is just nuts. The conclusion we came up with was really to start over. And I think Charles Cunniffe has done a really good job of coming up with something. Charles Cunniffe: What we did was we tried to use the foundation that was there. What was there was done not according to code or not according to construction technology so we ended up with the conclusion that we should abandon that and start from scratch and make it a better project' as we could have if we had done it ourselves. We ended up with 3 units on this site instead of the 4 that Cantrup had intended to build. We are trying to do 3 2-bedroom townhouses that are within the basic height and confines of the buildings that were there. But we have tried to keep it from protruding as far into the setbacks as it did. The problem is we still have a very limited site. I think one of the things that has happened historically with this building is that when the plans were presented by the previous owner they granted them the use of Summit Street as an access which then the interior wherever conventional turnings were regular streets. This was once a driveway to this property. We acquired ourselves intentionally a setback from the front yard that has caused us some restrictive limitations on what the building is allowed. What we have chosen to do is to build 3 new units here, working as much as we can within the limitations that we find on the site. We have a 3 story building with a basement level that has parking and mud room entry from the bottom. Then it goes on up 6 PZM12.22.87 to the 2-bedroom floors and living floor on top. These are 2- bedroom units and there is stack parking, laundry and elevator that goes up with a mudroom entry for this level. That is essentially the basement level. The first level has an entry and a bedroom with a master service bathroom and dressing area. This same plan is essentially on the second floor as well with the entry level being a spa area for this entire unit. The 3rd level is the living level and we have basically an open kitchen, dining, living arrangement with the area being oriented to the view of Aspen Mountain. The building site is so close to the base of the mountain that we have attempted an elevation in this section of the building to try to open up the view through here so that you are looking up through the core of the roof at the view. The view is definitely way up from where you are sitting. We have tried to stay lower than what is there within the legal height limit and back from the setbacks that are there. We have lowered the driveway easement a little bit in order to make for a better project. Joe Wells: It appears that the Summit street easement is perhaps the most controversial aspect of this. There is some confusion about it. John Roberts acquired the property. This is pretty much a condition of the site. This is a drawing done on a '74 topo. The Summit street site is here. There was some confusion about whether Hans had actually finalized the easement agreement through the property here. We find no record that that was ever finalized. It was discussed but before it was finalized, cantrup's empire came crashing down and this project was a part of that. He was doing 2 units on the site exempt from GMP. He was hoping to do the second 2 units through a replacement notion but he didn't have the contiguity required for the units. He wanted to demolish and rebuild on the site. So this project was instrumental in the collapse of that house of cards. In our original scheme for the 2 projects, Summit Place and Top of Nell--Summit Place was simply going to be finished with 3 of the 4 units. We were going to have a ski easement down through which would be established in our approvals. Top of Nell was to be accessed a lower parking structure at Top of Nell was to be accessed via this general alignment. But there was no antici- pation in our first scheme to have a road going through there. The City Engineer really was adamant that that easement be established through our platting effort. Subsequently this is the form that the plat took. Lot 2, the Summit Place lot was established here. The ski trail easement was established here. Then the easement that Jay wanted was here. We thought it was 7 PZM12.22.87 pretty clear to everyone easement that the City was to Summit Place Project. The one point that Cindy has raised that I think is of concern to her is the fact that we failed to note a setback variation on the plat is accurate. In other words Alan asked us to list all the variations required under the PUD directly on the plat. We obviously failed to pick up the fact that Summit Place which received very little attention through the approval process did require setback variations all the way around the building except on the East side of the project. That was certainly our oversight. Our point is, however, that this proposal lessens the non-conformity from the easement line. We chose to establish the lot lines as we did assuming that that PUD variation was acceptable. It was never discussed in any detail. Obviously we would not have configured lot 2 in the way ultimately chose to configure it if we had not thought the City knew that the setback variations were required as PUD permit. So our position is that since we are lessening that nonconformity we think that should be a favorable approach. that the relationship between that requiring was in very close proximity cindy: Just to enter into the record whether or not there were any actual setbacks granted on lot 2 for the structure was granted as it was in fact was granted as far as Joe could tell. Actually there was never a written document for the unit and it only has it on the plat. The Planning Office position is that maybe when this project was approved the idea was that the existing structure was going to be built as a triplex. Now the entire foundation is going to be taken out and a new project being built. We are looking at a totally new project and I think really the burden of proof is more with the applicant to show us that they can't meet the setbacks more to the reasoning why they should have variances from the setback. Alan: In the code the thing that puts a variation into effect-- the thing that makes a variation a legal fact is the going on the plat. We can't assume that the new that they I were variations apart. They have to state that the variation was being granted when it comes to floor area. That is what we do on all plats. When we grant a variation, they must be noted on the Plat so that there is some notice and some legality to it. Welton: This is an odd sized configured lot. And the area of greatest difficulty is the area where the easement for Summit Place was granted. The 2 feet between an 8 foot setback and a 10 foot setback doesn't make that much difference in my mind. And it can be noted on the amended plat just as it was forgotten on this plat. 8 PZM12.22.87 Roger: Also what is called Summit street I think the reason for getting that easement was as a transportation easement and not necessarily a street easement. Now a previous applicant, the Roberts group, decided to make that a street to access the building south of that street, right? Alan: No, we really did. It was really something that the city wanted that as opposed to that the applicant was interested in. Obviously since that time with the Plaza coming through there, it has become paved. Roger: I thought that the early goal was to get that transpor- tation easement to create the length between lA and basically Rubey Park. Joe: The way we were required to word the language was that the city Engineer had the option to create the street as he felt it was required. David: Didn't we also think about maybe another access in case there was a fire? Paul Taddune: It was also the instrument that the easement was used because there was concern over how a street dedication would impact the FAR calculation. I don't know at the time if any attention was given to setbacks. Alan: No, there really wasn't. Parry: I remember there was discussion about could be because there was a building there. right up against it. how wide the street So we know we were Welton: exists. feet. I think its improving the situation that currently And I don't feel comfortable making a big deal of 2 Joe: I don't know how cindy came to the conclusion that we are moving it back 8 feet and that is something we had to make sure you understand. Welton: Well, 8 feet is shown on the site plan. Joe: The comparison that is in your submission shows the extent to which it is moved back on the architectural drawings. The existing balconies overhang onto the easement. Cindy: I would like you to consider the first 2 conditions. And also the Environmental Health conditions. #3 would be that the 9 PZM12.22.87 driveway easement shall be clarified prior to the approval of the amendment. And then that #4 the final plat be amended to indicate the setback variations. That prior to approval of the amendment that the driveway easement shall be clarified. Parry: You mean approval of the amendments by Council? Cindy: Right. MOTION Roger: I move to recommend approval of .the Summit Place PUD Amendment subject to the following conditions: 1. The subdivision agreement shall be amended in its entirety after review for the amendment as part of the whole PUD proposal. The subdivision agreement shall incorporate the amendment as approved for this proposal. 2. The project shall comply to the Environmental Health require- ments as outlined in the memorandum by Tom Dunlop dated December 7, 1987. (attached in records) 3. The driveway easement will be clarified to the agreement of the Planning Office prior to approval of the amendment to city council approval. 4. The final plat shall be amended to indicate setback variat- ions. Michael seconded the motion with all in favor. PUBLIC HEARING FIRE DISTRICT SPA CONCEPTUAL/PRECISE PLAN Welton opened the public hearing. Steve: This is a request from the Aspen Fire Protection District to build an office between the Thrift Shop and the Fire station. It was rezoned to public SPA in 1982 and at that time some conceptual plans were drawn up for doing an office in that area. At that time there was to be a second floor residential unit for this. But this was never processed or formally approved. The 1987 plan is to just build the 700sqft addition. 10 PZM12.22.87 The Engineering Department raised a concern about the parking on Hopkins street that is reserved for the Fire station. That is one concern that we would like to discuss with you. They have also raised some concerns about platted requirements that are fairly perfunctory. The Parks Department state that they are satisfied with the landscaping plan. They are satisfied with the construction schedule. They noted that the drywell that is going in there is a fairly major facility and will handle the drainage off both the fire station roof as well as the office roof. They suggested an irrigation system as well. with regard to the compatibility criteria of the SPA review, the Planning Office agrees that this is basically acceptable. The architecture, the setback of the structure leaving open space and the landscaping are really very good. We think that it does indeed keep that small park and leaves that space open. They have to remove some of the trees that have been to the back of the lot.. Unfortunately there is not enough space to plant them in the front of the lot. We suggest that they do a few more shrubs next to the building to enhance that a bit more. HPC has reviewed this application at conceptual review and approved it. They felt that the height, the mass and the bulk were acceptable. There was still some concern over the coloration of materials in order to contrast the sense of the massive gray concrete block next to the Thrift Shop. That is a matter that will be resolved by HPC at final. The parking concern that Chuck Roth of the Engineering Department raised is that there are some spaces that are for the Firemen on Hopkins. There are only 2 spaces and we think that they are probably necessary in order for Firemen to. have in emergency basis. We suspect that if the 5 spaces in the alley are more clearly demarcated that that should help the parking situation a little bit. But they probably can't do away with the restricted parking. (Bill Dunaway was rattling his munchie bag here so I am not sure this is exactly what steve said) wi th regard to the GMP exemption we do represents an essential pUblic facility. structure for use by the Fire Marshal, District Secretary. We feel that it exemption. think that this office It is a fairly modest the Fire Chief and the does qualify for that We are recommending approval subj ect to 3 conditions on page 5 and 6 of the memo. (attached in records) The first condition is with regard to the SPA agreement which is a standard agreement 11 PZM12.22.87 that basically states everything that this project consists of besides the conditional use schedule. The second condition is the filing of the SPA plat that includes the site and landscaping plan showing plan as represented and also showing elevations. The third condition is to more clearly demarcate the 5 parking spaces off the alley. Bob Walker: We made a model primarily for the HPC because I wanted them to see what was going on in relationship to all of these structures. Originally in the scheme in 1982 this was going to be a 2 story building. In fact the Thrift Shop was also designed to be a 2 story building. That doesn't seem to be necessary any more. And in fact we designed this to be only a single story structure and not have anything else added on to it physically. Apparently the main concern when this process was approved in 1982 was that they keep this park. That was very important. And so there were 2 major comments when we presented this: One was that this overhang would encroach on the park and that we would be willing to move it back somewhat. And the other was just how compatible should this building be with this Thrift Shop or with the fire barn. None of these really have any great aesthetic Value. They are only concrete block buildings. What we had decided to do was to make the Fire Marshall's Office addition be the same material as the Thrift Shop. Now in keeping with what the HPC's feelings were about, I went ahead and made another mockup showing some other colors and I think what it is going to end up being is a decision made by the HPC as to whether or not we really want to go with any kind of color or do we want to keep it plain. The other thing that we did do though in order to alleviate any concerns about a visual encroachment into the park area--we moved the whole building back about 1 and 1/4 feet and we also reduced the size of the overhang. That put us in conformance with all the requirements that were stated in the original SPA approval for the Thrift Shop as far as square footage of the park and so forth. Roger: One of my concerns is that you mentioned that you are not planning on building a second story. Has the Fire District's plans changed as far as getting a full time fire person and that require some housing? Or are your plans such that by the time you will have that you are going to be in a different location. 12 PZM12.22.87 Darryl Grob: I am a captain with the Volunteer Fire Department as well as involved with the construction of this. I can't really specifically speak for the Fire Protection District in terms of their master plan. I know that the original residence that was intended to go on top of this structure was to be utilized as a benefit for a Fire Marshal or somebody along that line. What has proved out is the fact that they have been able to hire Wayne Vandemark as Fire Marshal and they were not required to attract or to meet his salary requirements to provide housing for the individual. In fact, there were some negative aspects about living in the commercial area so as a consequence of that they have simply deleted the plans for housing. Roger: What I recall the Fire District before it was that they were looking along the lines of a full time employee to get a better fire rating. And if that is the case and if that is still in the Fire District's plans, I would like to see them not make a building that they can't build a second story for if they, in the future, will need a unit for such an individual in this location. Darryl: I understand and my only comment would be that they were the ones who spelled out the criteria for this structure and I have to assume for the time being that they have thought that aspect of it through. We could specially address this to them at their next District meeting and provide some sort of indication to you. Welton: If you design a roof for 75 pounds of snowload it will certainly handle a town residential requirement. Bob: If the foundations are a problem here we can go with a snowload and a roof load. Then we have to do something else with the foundation. Our indication from the Fire District was that we do not design this building to take a second floor. In order to do that the District would have to go back through an addit- ional approval process in order to build a second story. Roger: What would seem a little ludicrous to me is that you do have the physical capability of putting a second floor there but then you are going to end up with a notch that will have to be torn down and rebuilt if you have to use that building for anything else. Bob: My indication from the Fire District was that it is not their intention to do what you are talking about--to add some sort of housing structure here at any time in the future. "'- Roger: as one OK. What I would intend to do is to move to approve but of the conditions that they address this before City 13 PZM12.22.87 Council and get it worked out by that time. I don't have a problem with the structure as presented or anything else like that except I hate to see the lack of flexibility in the future. steve: I would like to point out that I did not make irrigation a condition of approval. MOTION Roger: I move to recommend approval of the Aspen Fire Protection District SPA plan and GMP exemption as an essential public facility to build a Fire station Office subject to the following conditions: The first 3 conditions identical to Planning Office memo dated December 7, 1987. (attached in records) And the 4th condition that they will address before City Council the advisa- bility of building this building as a I-story structure only. And without the capability of adding a second floor in the future if they need it as a residential fireman or if .lndeed the building is sold in the future if the Fire Department moves. The thought behind it is that it would minimize construction and reconstruction if the capability of the second floor was built into the structure. Mari seconded the motion. Michael: Is there a problem with that condition? Darryl: No. There is no problem with that condition. In fact we are making more out of it than we really need to. The fact is by saying it would only be a one story structure building we reduced the footings from being every 2 feet wide to being 16 inches wide and it is a relatively easy thing to do to make the footings a little bit wider or to make the lintels a little bit heavier. At this point we can do that. If the Fire Protection District knows it is going to cost "X" number of dollars more to make the footings wider, then everything is fine so it is not a problem. Roger: My recommendation would be to go to the construction so that you can add a second floor. Welton asked for public comment. There was none and he closed the public hearing. Everyone voted in favor of the motion. Meeting was adjourned. The time was 6:10 Clerk /"".",- " 14