Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19891003 \) ~.l( RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 3. 1989 vice Chairman Jasmine Tygre called meeting to order at 4:30pm. Answering roll call were Bruce Roger Hunt and Jasmine Tygre. and Graeme Means were excused. Kerr, Michael Herron, Mari Peyton, Welton Anderson, Richard Compton COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS There were none. STAFF COMMENTS There were none. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were none. MINUTES AUGUST. 8 AND 22. 1989 Bruce made a motion to approve minutes of August 8 and 22, 1989. Mari seconded the motion with all in favor. CONSENT AGENDA BUTERA STREAM MARGIN REVIEW SHADOW MOUNTAIN BUILDING GMOS EXEMPl'ION FOR OFFICE SPACE Roger made a motion to adopt the consent agenda. Mari seconded the motion with all in favor. CRESTAHAUS LODGE REZONING. SPECIAL REVIEW & GMOS EXEMPTION PUBLIC HEARING Jasmine opened the public hearing. Tom Baker: This applicant is requesting tabling. They would like to have the option to come back before P&Z to compete for the unallocated 1989 LP allotment. That would be for 8 units. In discussions with the staff and members of the P&Z to recollect on this I guess this was done once before with Mr. Cantrup. We allowed him to come back and compete for unallocated allotment. However the applicant has been informed that they would still have to abide by the GMQS section of the Landuse Code which prohibits substantial amendments to their application. Additionally we have told them that there is no reliance that they will be awarded the allocation in the future. This does not compromise the Bavarian's application at all. staff doesn't see any problem with the request. PZM10.3.89 Michael: I don't know that we have the authority to go ahead and do something like that. Tom: We are going back through channels to see if that is a doable deal. Michael: received. The Cantrup precedent is one that was not well Bruce: 1989? What did city council do to the other competition for Tom: Because of the administrative delay those were extended to April 15th for Commercial GMQS and June lst for Residential. Bruce: Weren't there leftover allotments in some of the categories for 1988? Tom: Yes. Nothing was carried over. But the LP Zone District was carried over. There was a 10 unit allotment in 1989. Mari: If they are not going to change their application then what is the point? Tom: Well, I don't know if they can successfully do anything. I think there are some major flaws. Mari: They can change it in a minor way. Tom: They will have no reliance from us that they are going to be awarded any allotment. They would still have to meet threshold to get approvals. I don't think they have had time to research all their options. This may give them time to research all of their options. And they may never come back. It is the staff's call on whether the changes would be considered substantial. Jasmine asked for public comment. There was none and she closed the public hearing. MOTION Roger: I move to table action on the Crestahaus Lodge Rezoning and GMQS scoring at the request of the applicant with the applicant understanding that there is no reliance of the applicant getting whatever remaining allotment there is. Mari seconded the motion. 2 PZM10.3.89 Michael: I am concerned about what we are doing by doing that. Whether there is reliance or whether we are creating some kind of a right that they have to come back at a later date. I don't know whether we should be doing that. If they have withdrawn their application then they have withdrawn it. If they have the right to come back then they should come back. Roger: They have not withdrawn. They have requested tabling. Tom: What I will do is condition this with the Attorney's approval. Roger: I will add that to my motion. That this action is conditioned on approval of the City Attorney. Mari: I accept that for the second to the motion. Everyone voted in favor of the motion. BAVARIAN INN CODE AMENDMENT. SPECIAL REVIEW & GMOS EXEMPl'ION PUBLIC HEARING Jasmine opened the public hearing. Tom: Now we have the situation where the Bavarian Inn has no competition. And when there isn't competition the P&Z has the abili ty to accept the staff scoring. There have been some changes since the memo went out. Roxanne will elaborate on those. P&Z has the option to accept the score, recommend approval and direct staff to submit a recommendation for the lodge unit allotment in resolution form to City Council. Roxanne explained staff's scoring. (attached in record) Glenn Horn: Let me just explain the problem we ran into in preparing the site. It is a similar problem we ran into when we did the Holiday House--the application for the Ski Company. Based upon the idea that you have to see the open space from the public street for it to count in the calculation of open space. This building is unusual because it fronts on 2 streets. Our whole idea was to re-orient to Bleeker because it is a little mellower street and lends itself to our site plan. So we tried to get the open space so it would be visible from Bleeker Street and 7th. Street. Mac Cunningham: A lot of the open space focuses around the existing pool area in the back. When we did the calculations none of this is calculated as open space because by viewplane it has to be cut off because open space has to be able to be seen 3 PZM10.3.89 from the street-not from an alley. So we have a chunk of open space that would have brought us over the I imi t that we can't use. So that is one of the problems with the definition of open space. Glenn: The upshot is we thought that open space really benefits the project but based upon the definition of the code, it doesn't. Right now the way the Landuse Code is set up for the LP Zone you calculate the floor area based upon a special review not to exceed 1 to 1. And I think that was put into effect to create some flexibility for the small lodges and tried to give them a break given the fact that they are working in small areas in existing residential neighborhoods. I suggest that we have a code amendment whereby open space in the LP Zone for these small lodges would be determined by special review. Leslie and I in talking about it thought that was a little too wide open to just make it straight out special review. She suggested why not look at either trimming down this building a little bit or putting a minimum on the amount of reduction that you could have by special review if the code wasn't to allow open space by special review. She suggested that open space is 35% requirement but by special review it could be reduced to 30%. We think that is a good idea because by trying to trim this building down and it is already really tight, we would go ahead and amend our application based upon Leslie's suggestion that the code be amended to make the calculation of open space in the LP Zone a special review consideration provided that open space would never be less than 30% of the site. Jasmine: And the 30% would still be following the definition of "Open to view from the street". Glenn: suggest from the Yes. And the whole def ini tion of open space- I don't that we tinker with that definition whether it is open street or not because I think that is a huge problem. Jasmine: This would not affect our previous definition. Glenn: No. Not at all. I think Leslie had a pretty good idea and we would go ahead and amend the code amendment to say that it would not be less than 30%. Jasmine: That seems like a reasonable approach. Roger: I can foresee other places where that 5% mayor not be significant. Jasmine: But it would be special review. 4 PZM10.3.89 Roger: I am saying is 5% the right amount. Mari: should review I feel that instead of just saying by special review there be some language giving some standards by which a special would be warranted. Glenn: I put that in the language. "Taking into consideration open space which benefits the site itself". It may not necessarily be open to a public street. Because this site has some open areas that will definitely benefit the project but won't fit the definition so that would be a consideration. Mari: I feel it is more important that the open space benefit the neighbors than the site. I think it is important that the open space is still defined as being open to view from some neighboring property. Tom: Staff's conclusion was that we wanted to have the applicant see if they could change some of the decks or balconies to get that extra 3%. We didn't know if they could or not. While we prefer not to mess with the code, that seemed to be a reasonable compromise if they were unable to squeeze out that extra 3% by messing around with the balconies or overhangs. Jasmine: This is a code amendment though. We are talking about a code amendment in general and whether or not the applicant can amend his plan at this point really should have no bearing on whether we decide to adopt this code amendment. If we think this code amendment is a good idea then it doesn't matter if the applicant can still chop balconies off. That is fine it is part of the GMQS but that really is not relevant to the code amendment itself. Mari: I think that the special review-the guidelines should state that only if there is still at least 35% which is open to neighboring properties. That doesn't mean that you have to see if from the front street but from other properties. So that it has benefits to the neighborhood-someplace other than from within the project. Jasmine: I think it should say "Unimproved lot area which enhances the site and is open to view from neighboring properties if not the street". So that it becomes very clear. Mari: I am just afraid that if the special review allows it to be cut to 30%, there will only be 30% on the site that is undeveloped. And if we keep that 35% figure as far as unbuildable and viewable from neighbors I think that insures against that. 5 PZM10.3.89 Jasmine asked if there was public comment. Ted Mularz: I have a couple of things that I think are worthy of your attention. One is the fact that if we are only dealing with the development of the 3 lots that this building is on the open space would exceed the required 35%. The other thing is that in dealing with the 35% or no less than 30% I think that something that would be in our favor here and I know it doesn't meet the strict definition of open space because we have space that is open that is more than 3 or 4 feet below grade. But we are not actually creating our FAR within the open space. It is not as though we have solid building over that area. It is open to the sky from that point up. Roger: I don't know whether the 5% is the correct amount or not when you look at the general thing. But my concern is that as soon as we make it 30% instead of 35%, people will start designing to that relying on that 5%. I think we should get in the criteria that this is allowed because of existing structures that remain in this redevelopment as this is. I think we should set up for the criteria for this to take action is that it had to be a design problem resulting from an existing plan or an existing building. Michael: This is only going to be applicable in the LP Zone. And the LP Zone is all built. Glenn: How about "Percent of open space required for site building--35% but may be reduced to 30% by special review. In establishing required open space for specific development the Commission shall consider 1. site constraints resulting from existing structures. 2. The quantity of unapproved lot area which enhances the site and is open to view from neighboring properties but not the street but does not meet the definition of open space. Roger: Well, it doesn't quite do it but it is almost there. And you still leave open the possibility that through their design of the new portion of it they could, in effect, aggravate the problem and I would like to see the problem not aggravated by the re-development. But if it is there and existing I don't mind addressing it. Bruce: I must say that I actually prefer the proposed amendment as it reads in the memo. And the reason for that is I would rather not say anything other than 35% that the code already says and leave it up to special review. We are talking about 3% here in the case of this applicant. We may have another applicant next year that may come in and maybe they are at 29% but it is a 6 PZM10.3.89 great project. I don't think we want to constrain ourselves over 1, 2 or 3%. I think there may be very good projects that come in and it is open to special review. We then have the ability in that case to say "Yes this is a great small lodge. This is a wonderful improvement they are doing to it and let's go with 29% open space in this case". I would rather see it go just as it is proposed here. Then by special review we approve this project at 32% or whatever rather than try to come up with some change in the definition and putting a cap on it. Tom: The thing we were concerned about at staff is that all these LP lodges are in mature neighborhoods and perhaps there is special need to insure that those neighborhoods get compatible development. We are trying to keep these lodges viable and we are trying to make sure they still fit into the neighborhood. That 35% open space thing was a pretty big constraint. Ted Mularz: When you are dealing with existing conditions you have to make some allowances to the existing condition. We felt that shrinking the rooms in order to meet the 35% would greatly diminish the quality of what we are trying to do. I don't see any benefit to the community relative to that. Michael: I would be concerned about considering an amendment reducing open space in the other zones. But I think this is a peculiar zone-the LP Zone. And because of what the intent of what that zone is is to preserve the small lodges then we should give it consideration as opposed to something we wouldn't do in the Commercial Zone or the C-1 Zone. The underlying intent of the LP Zone was to create incentives so that developers would take these lodges and preserve them, upgrade them and keep them where they are. That is an important enough benefit to the City. Then if we find that there are special review provisions or special circumstances applicable to reducing the open space in situations such as this, it is probably a benefit to everybody to do that. I would be in favor of it. I wouldn't like saying 30% because I think that is something that somebody shoots for. I would like to see us be able to stay more flexible. Jasmine: What we are trying to arrive at is flexibility and to give us revJ.ew criteria that are discourage applicants from designing to special review. to arouse going to 7 PZM10.3.89 Roger: I would like to see an amendment not specifying an absolute minimum because that is what designers will design to. Jasmine: You have a minimum already. 35%. Roger: The way I feel about it is--reduced by special review where we determine that is presented to us and P&Z determines that reduction is necessary due to the existing site design or the site design of the existing facilities and it was a constraint that in effect they had no control over and they did the best job possible to minimize the adverse effects of. That is sort of how I would like to see that code amendment read. The goal is still 35% and I would like to see the Board be able to reduce that as necessary for the project. Bruce: That section on page 4--that section 7.404 where it says that open space is-- Glenn: It is really easy. Just say "Based upon these standards and 7.404 and that is special review for open space in the LP Zone and it is a simple cross reference in the Code. Bruce: That is the easiest way to deal with that. Glenn: Somebody spent a lot of time thinking of what those criteria were. Jasmine: The only thing it doesn't include is the fact that this would be the result of an existing development. Glenn: Maybe this solution is closer. "In establishing the open space minimum the Commission shall consider the configuration of the existing structures on the site which are to be preserved-- unique natural or man made site conditions. Then the quantity of unimproved lot area which enhances the site is open to view from neighboring properties but not the street but does not meet the strict definition of open space". What you are trying to get at is to try to create some flexibility for these existing lodges where they are working around something unique on the site or a building that you don't want to tear down. This is closer to what you are shooting for. Mari: The only problem is that language just tosses in existing buildings as one of the things that may be considered instead of requiring such an application to be using an existing building. I think it leaves a loophole. Glenn: You could say "Considering foremost the configuration-- 8 PZM10.3.89 Jasmine: No. That the need for special review is necessitated by the configuration of existing building or feature. Glenn: So that if someone is razing everything on the site and starting over then they wouldn't be qualified for special review. Jasmine: The point is that the deviation from the open space requirement is necessitated by the fact that they are preserving these existing features. Mari: I think that special review can only be if there is an existing building which is going to be preserved. Glenn: Then you say "Special review be permitted for the preservation of an existing structure". Amy Margerum: I would highly recommend that if you are going to do this that you make it such that it is flexible under special review without changing the definition of open space. Glenn: You could just say "Special review to reduce the open space requirement below 35% may be permitted only when the reduction is necessary to preserve an existing structure or structures on the site. In establishing the required open space the Commission shall consider configuration of the existing structures on the site which are to be preserved, unique or natural or man made site conditions, quantity of unimproved lot area which enhances neighboring factions". This then keeps the definition of open space the same. Jasmine asked if there was any further public comment. There was none and she closed the public portion of the hearing. MOTION Roger: I move to carry forward what Glenn has come up with as an amendment to the code. The Planning Office will come back with this amendment in resolution form. Mari seconded the motion with all in favor. SPECIAL REVIEW FOR FAR Jasmine: In this particular application the external floor area added will bring the FAR to .91 to 1 FAR. And we do have special review criteria which according to the Planning Office the applicant has met. There are conditions for the approval. 9 PZM10.3.89 Tom: Staff does not have a approval. The conditions (attached in record) problem with the FAR. are for the entire We recommend application. MOTION Bruce: I move that we adopt the staff recommendations to the FAR. Roger seconded the motion with all in favor. GMOS EXEMPl'ION FOR EMPLOYEE UNITS Tom: The applicant is meeting their employee housing obligations. The GMQS exemption is for the 3 affordable housing units that are part of the requirement. The commitment that they made in their scoring is pretty straight forward. Jasmine: So we just need to approve that? Tom: It is a commission action only. MOTION Michael: I move that we approve the GMQS exemption for affordable housing as set forth in the Planning Office memo dated September 21, 1989. (attached in record) Bruce seconded the motion with all in favor. Jasmine asked for public comment on the Bavarian Inn expansion. Joe Wells, representing Crestahaus: I want to make it clear on the record that it is our intent to effectively waive our rights to quota so that if this applicant meets threshold requirements they stand first in line for the quota. And we would perhaps at some point in the future compete for the remainder of the quota if there is any. I wanted to make it clear that we are stepping down from the competition so that this applicant can receive his quota and proceed if he is eligible. MOTION Michael: I would like to make a motion that we adopt the Planning Office's scoring to the only applicant who meets the threshold. I would like to recommend that we have covered everything else in the application--all the requests that they have made. The one condition we have backed off of a little bit is the 32% that they came in on. I would like to recommend this along with our approval that we actually oppose the conditions 10 PZM10.3.89 that are contained in the Planning Office the applicant address where they have conditions. memo or at least let problems with those So my motion would be that adopt the scoring but we approve the application subject to these conditions with the 32% limitation on open space if the City council approves that code amendment. If they don't do that then all we have done here tonight is for naught anyway. Bruce seconded the motion. Glenn: The technical aspects first. On the curb cuts on 7th street. This is at the end, #9. We would love to do what this-- we intend to do this what is asked for here in 9 and 10--remove the curb cuts. We have to point out that the City is not the authority that is responsible for that. And if the highway department by some chance has-can't abandon those curb cuts then we are going to be stuck with them. I don't think that is going to happen because usually they are thrilled to get rid of curb cuts. But I just would like the language to say "Subject to approval by the Colorado Department of Highways". Jasmine: For both 9 and 10? Glenn: Yes. Michael: I amend my motion to that. Bruce: I amend my second. Glenn: Another technical thing--It is going to be hard to install these grease interceptors for the kitchen facilities before we get a building permit. We are going to have to do that prior to CO because we are going to need the building permit to do it. It is a catch 22. Baker: Can you demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Environmental Health Department that you are going to do that? Glenn: Mac, are you intending to go right in there and start the renovation as soon as possible? Mac: That is our intention. We were not aware that there was not a restaurant license until one of the reviewing boards brought it up. So obviously that would be one of the things we would be doing immediately relative to renovation of the existing inn. 11 PZM10.3.89 Michael: I Environmental the CO. would add to my motion that they have an Health approved grease trap prior to issuance of Bruce: I would amend my second to that. Glenn: #11 has to deal with the sprinkler system. I am not very familiar with sprinkler systems and what they mean. But Roger Kerr, one of the architects on the proj ect is and he wants to address the sprinklers and how they would affect this building. Roger Kerr: Up until now we designed buildings according to the fire code established by the uniform fire code. And for the new building what we have designed to meet the code was a 1 hour construction building. And we could, under the code, build a building about 2 and 1/2 to 3 times as big as that. We have got about 3,000sqft for floor. The building code would allow 10,500 and that is the standard for the whole united states. I don't know anything about any changes in the Uniform Building Code to require us to do that. The way we have designed it it will resist a fire for 1 hour and according to the information given us there is a 4 minute response time to the building. We have got smoke detectors in the building. I think it is designed for safety doublefold. It has got a system that alerts people to get out of the building, alerts the fire department to get there in short enough time. Tom: In your packet is included the Fire Marshal's referral. Now there are 2 referrals from the Fire Marshal. The first one says this project would require the installation of an automatic sprinkler system in all structures. I guess we use the Fire Marshal's recommendation in building these conditions. But I see he has excluded that from the September 14th memo to Leslie. What I would like to do is request that we have the opportunity to talk to the Fire Marshal and we would go with his recommendation if that is OK with you. Roger Kerr: I serve on the Building Department Review Committee and we have been in discussions over this. Wayne decided to adopt an ordinance. No one is quite sure what it's status is. The Building Department is the final word in that environment. Wayne's position is he wants to see sprinklers in every building in Aspen. The United states not only doesn't require it but it takes the position that it is not appropriate in certain structures. I think that the Building Department at the time is the one that really should be the arbiter over that. 12 PZM10.3.89 Jasmine: Normally our procedure is to adopt the recommendations of the Fire Marshal. I think that is what we are going to have to do. Michael: Except that I don't think the Fire Marshall can just sit down and arbitrarily and impose conditions. It is either part of the Building Code adopted by the City-- Jasmine: I agree with you but I don't think we have the right to waive this. Michael: I would like to amend my motion so that if the Code requires that, then it is there if he imposes it. But if the Code doesn't require it I don't want to just give Wayne the discretion to do that. Mari: I don't know why anything has to be put in our condition that is contained in the code anyway. Michael: code. You are right. So make it as required by existing Glenn: Condition #2 has to do with log structures. When we were working on the site plans I checked to see whether the site was in the District and it is not within an historic district. We checked to see whether the buildings are on the inventory and they are not. But nonetheless we are sensitive to the desire to preserve historic buildings. And the applicants have no problem at all in researching these buildings to see whether they have any historic significance. And they commit to undertake that research. If the structures are historically significant what we would like the Commission to say is that we will seek to find a place to relocate them and renovate them. But I am not sure we can commit that we can relocate these to another site. It is getting harder and harder to find places to relocate buildings to. And because the code does not require it I think it is kind of onerous to ask the applicant to commit to relocating the buildings when it is not required by code. Mari: The same thing came up when we were doing the Mountain House Lodge. And I felt then and I feel too that it is onerous. As it turned out the Mountain Lodge was able to relocate it. But it was not required. So I think we should do the same thing here. Michael: I make that amendment to my motion. 13 PZM10.3.89 Jasmine: So actually what we are going to do then is strike part of 2. "The applicant has agreed to research the historic significance of the log structures". The applicant has already said they will do that. Bruce: I think we effort to relocate". things. had language in the other "To make every They ran adds in the paper and all kinds of Glenn: Mac I s is on the local historic trust and he is really sensitive to this thing and he wants to find a home for them as much as anyone else. Tom: "The applicant shall make a significant effort to relocate the structures." Jasmine: So now Mickey has made a motion with the conditions as amended, seconded by Bruce. Is there any further discussion? Everyone voted in favor of the motion. Jasmine closed the public hearing. Meeting was adjourned. Clerk 14