Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19930921 /""'" '-.-- ('" '- c ~'f...rY RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21. 1993 Chairman Bruce Kerr called meeting to order at 4:30 P.M. Answering roll call were Tim Mooney, Sara Garton, Roger Hunt and Bruce Kerr. Jake Vickery and David Brown arrived shortly after roll call. Jasmine Tygre was excused. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS There were none. STAFF COMMENTS Leslie gave members a list containing entrants for the name of the ice rink. P&Z members are to short-list this 3 page list. The list is to be returned the first meeting of October. She also told commission of the September 30th to October APA Conference. There is a training budget to Commissioners who could attend. 2nd State send any Bruce reminded staff regarding a resolution for Richard Compton. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were none. BERGER LANDMARK DESIGNATION 835 WEST MAIN STREET Ami Amidon, Preservationist: record. Made presentation as attached in Bruce opened the public portion of this hearing. Dick Fallin, Architect: As Ami has said Aspen is not only victorian architecture. There is a more recent period of Aspen's history that is significant and needs to be saved. The house we are asking landmark designation for was built in 1947. It was designed by Fritz Benedict which I believe is an important and significant aspect of the house. But as was determined by HPC the house could stand on it's own irregardless of who may have designed it. The house was important architecturally and to the history of Aspen. It represents the beginning of what we know as Aspen rebellion. The modern era of Aspen began in the 40s post World War II. This was one of the first houses built in that era by Fritz Benedict and immediately after the period of time when he studied with Frank Lloyd Wright. ,~-.. -- ('- "- "'"-''''''' ( ,- PZM9.21.93 The house is built with local materials. It is built with Lenado logs and contains sandstone from the Frying Pan River. He read into the record comments from HPC minutes of Les Holst, Donnelley Erdman, Karen Day, Roger Moyer and Jake Vickery stating their support for historical designation of the Berger house. Bruce Kerr: I would like to cut off any discussion about the highway in regard to this application. We will consider this item based on the criteria which are historic designation criteria. If there are political issues related to this item we are going to let that be dealt with by the people who are elected. We are only dealing with it from a Planning & zoning perspective based on the criteria we have for historic landmark designation. Fallin then showed pictures of the house and the site. Roger: Are we designating the structure or the site? Ami: The site. When we landmark designate something we always do it by legal description. We can't assume that the building would be moved at any time in the future. That way the HPC has influence on future additions--things that happen on the property. Roger: I have problems designating the site because of the planning issues. up front I have real problems designating the site. I have no problems designating the building. What I don't want when you end up designating a site you end up with real troubles as far as executing a transportation plan. We went through this with the Lixiviation Plant where it ended up being extreme problems by basically designating a foundation because it was a site that was designated. And I don't want to have to go through that again on the other side of the river. Ami: I think it is understood that if the structure that is of historical importance--if this is moved off the property, HPC has lost what they were trying to protect. I think it should be addressed whether this is going to be a problem if the entrance to Aspen changes. I know there has been some discussion that this could stop the highway. That is not true at all. There is an environmental review process that must be undertaken and I think that if you find this building is significant to the community why wouldn't it be addressed by that study? It is not going to stop the highway. I have been told by the historian for the Colorado Dept of Transportation that she has the final say on this and they have the power to override our local designation. 2 I"""'" -- /''''''' '-' PZM9. 21. 93 I think HPC understood that they allow buildings to be relocated in extreme situations. Sara: Where is the HPC at this point on designating a ski ~~~ for preservation? Ami: Generally to this point HPC has only thoroughly addressed resources from up until 1910. But they have recognized more recent structures and sites. And they are starting to become aware of it. Post World War II things are getting to be 50 years of age. We are losing things right and left. We have not landmarked many post 1945 structures yet. Sara: You had better get going on this. Jake: The point is that if the highway is going to go through there, it is going to go through there. All this does by making landmark is give it one more step for review. It sends it back to us when the highway decides it is going to go through there then they have to figure out what do you do with this landmark. We going to move it to what site? What are we going to do? So it comes back to HPC. PUBLIC COMMENT Fred Pearce: I am an attorney representing the Aspen Villas Condominium Association and the West Bleeker Place. I understand your concerns with respect to not getting involved on the political discussion with the highway. It has been raised by 2 of the P&Z members. That was my client's primary concern. That is why they are here today. They have asked me to come and raise the concern that they have that this particular application is nothing more than a thinly veiled transparent attempt to put another roadblock in front of the proposed alignment. We want that recognized. We want it on the table of your deliberations. We think you should consider that because we think that is what is going on. In connection with that and to address the actual designation I spent a fair amount of time going through Ami's notes from HPC. I attended the HPC meeting. I listened to their comments and frankly I didn't see anything that would indicate that this was historic pursuant to the guidelines set forth in the code. The guidelines are specific in terms of meeting historic designation. "The structure represents architectural style that is unique, distinct or traditional Aspen character". I did not hear any testimony at the meeting that I was at that this was unique or distinct or what made it traditional Aspen character vs anything else. 3 1"""" PZM9.21.93 - I heard some discussion about having Wright's influence. I didn't hear anything regarding it being unique or distinct. In fact I heard 3 architects in town say that Wright's influence is allover town. About traditional Aspen character--I didn't hear any testimony that it was. I don't see how it was. I don't see what makes it that and I am concerned that there was no true findings in that regard. It was just decided that they want this to be historic. I am not convinced that there were findings that will uphold. The same is true of the criteria--"The structure must embody the distinguishing body of significant or unique architectural type or specimen". I didn't hear anything about that. I didn't' see anything about that. I think we are barking up the wrong tree about the historic significance of this building. Then--neighborhood character. This neighborhood has 2 large condominium complexes. It has the Bavarian Inn. It has 2 large very modern homes. It has 3 small old homes. It is an eclectic mix at best. It certainly is not a character that is reflected by this particular structure. ~,,"",". / This property does not fit the criteria. I think just dealing with the criteria this property does not fit. I think you need to review these criteria more objectively and if you do, I don't think you will find this fits the criteria. "- I do think you have to address the political issue. It is clearly there. If you recommend that this be historically designated I would suggest that you recommend "This historic designation is not intended to impede in any manner the straight shot of highway 82 as approved by the voters of Aspen. And if it is necessary to move the Berger house to accommodate the straight shot it should be permitted without any additional review" certainly it is perceived to be a roadblock that the City will be putting in front of something that the voters have approved. Ed Sezacky: with all respect to Fred it seems to me that whether the voters approved it or not from what I have read in the paper the highway is a dead issue. It also seems to me that there was a victorian on the corner right next to the Hickory House that in some of the highway plans had the highway going right through it. So if a victorian wouldn't stop the highway I don't see how Bruce's house stops the highway either. It is obvious to me that this is a unique house in Aspen. Show me another one like it. They are disappearing right and left. And if you were trying to designate a house like this historic in this town 99.9 percent of the people would scream bloody murder. You "- 4 - PZM9. 21. 93 - have got a guy here who is willing to do it. admirable. I think it is important to Aspen and in 50 years, go "Thank you, Bruce". I think that is we are going to, So I would encourage you to take him up on his offer. You are not going to get a lot of other offers like that. Jeremy Feld: I am a sculptor and designer. Since '57 I have had a hobby of examining the houses around Aspen. And I am pleased to have been able to redo some of the houses and to build some new ones all with the idea of site placement and having a house that doesn't jam up against the next house and create the space and what we are looking for in Aspen. Bruce's house is a beautiful house. It is a Fritz Benedict house and there are far too few of the houses left of that period. Aspen is more than one historical period. It consists of a series of loops in time where the face of Aspen has been modified and has grown into what we have today. We need to preserve the beautiful things we have. We need to keep this space. Forget about the political aspect. That has been hashed and re-hashed. The important thing is this is a lovely house and a prime example of Benedict's work at that time. - And I think the site is terribly important to this case. It is part of the whole thing. This was designed as an amenity--not as just a house stuck on a piece of land. Berger: I talked to Fritz Benedict on Sunday night. He said that he felt the house was important and should be allowed to stand. Then as to whether this is unique and whether this represents a significant style. One could say Wrightean buildings are allover the united States. There are also Victorian buildings allover the united States. However, the fact that we have victorian buildings in Aspen and that was the early style that represents the mining period is important to our past. And so is the period after the Paepcke's arrived in 1945 which came in with the Wrightean style in many of the new houses. So this is an important style also of our past. This was the second renascence or the first renascence with the second blooming of Aspen the town. And this house as has been pointed out has been called a collision but at least a mixture of the 2 styles of the log cabin which is a very traditional frontier style with the very modernistic and even a kind of cubist effect which is an unusual thing to get with a log cabin. So you do have this very strange mixture which I think qualifies for this being a unique building. There being no further public comment Bruce closed the public ~ portion of the hearing. ......~ 5 ,..... PZM9. 21. 93 - COMMISSIONER COMMENTS At this point Jake announced he would abstain from commenting and voting on this application. MOTION Sara: I recommend landmark designation at 835 West Main Street, Berger Annexation, city of Aspen, finding that it meets criteria B,C,D,E and F. Tim seconded the motion. Roger: Would you consider an amendment to your motion along the lines of the representative of the Villas? I prefer a more generic transportation system as opposed to the highway. I think this is a critical planning issue. Sara: As a planner I feel strongly about the history being as well preserved as any considerations for the future so I don't want to add that to the motion. "r"'~' Roger: Then I can't support the motion. "'- Ami: The same suggestion was made at the HPC hearing and the problem that I have with that statement is that they ask HPC to give up their right to review the re-Iocation of the structure if that should come before them. And for any re-Iocation HPC asks for certain things like a report from an Engineer stating the stability of the building, a bond that insures it's relocation is completed without damage to the building. And I think that is asking them to give up something that is important to their world. Tim: I am going to vote for Sara's motion. This is the crux of why I am involved with the Planning & zoning commission. It is a very important statement that I can make and hope that I can stick to on everything that comes before me and that I have to vote on. Mr. Feld, his philosophy is my philosophy. His presentation is my presentation. His Aspen is my Aspen. And this is a good day for me to be here. I am at the right place at the right time. Berger: I have been told that that would be an impediment to moving the house. And also I think that it should stand on it's merits without provisos. I find this is irrelevant. Bruce: I am about where Roger is on this. I don't have a problem with designating the structure as a historic structure. My fear is that by doing that somehow we have placed an encumbrance there r-' that is unnecessary. I like the suggestion of Fred that there be _ 6 ./""".......... PZM9. 21. 93 - some kind of language whereby we can make it clear that we make this building of historical significance but there is nothing particular about the site that is historically significant. David: I find that the wrightean influence is insignificant when we are looking at this because I think that it is not as important as the fact that it is, I think, a good representation of '50s architecture. In that sense I think it is worth preserving. As I look at the pictures here I can see where it is a piece of the site. And the site and the house are an important playoff of each other. I also can't ignore the even though it is not a specific part of our criteria for historic designation, I think it is extremely important future of Aspen. How people get in and out of town ____ the least environmentally damaging way to get them out of town. So as far as designating the site and the house and I think this is worth saving but as far as designating it as one I think the house should be saved as much as I would like to see it saved on the site if there were a viable transportation alternative in the future I think that this has to be looked at very closely. So I guess I would like to see some sort of caveat in our motion or supplement to the motion to allow for modification of the house on the site to work with future transportation needs. '- Bruce: It concerns me somewhat that on the one hand we have the applicant representing what he thinks Mr. Benedict's views are. And on the other hand one of the opponents representing Mr. Benedict's views seem to be opposed to one another. I have to come to the point that if Fritz really felt strongly about this one way or the other he would either be here or would have provided a letter representing his views. Sara: I think that asking an architect to designate his own work is like asking an artist what is his masterpiece. That is up to the viewer. The Historical Preservation Committee is the one who had criteria to judge by and ruled on that criteria. And I feel that I can go along with that and support it as well as knowing the house myself. I think it is probably inappropriate for Mr. Benedict to be here and announce what he thinks of his design. As far as the planning issue, we are asked to designate this as a historic parcel. The planning may come in once the highway entrance is designed and determined. Then we will be asked what to do with this parcel with the HPC's recommendation. And then we plan carefully if it is going to be moved or what will happen. ,r"""...... - 7 ;""'-. PZM9.21.93 - It isn't a planning issue right now. It is a designation of a historic parcel. So I don't want to amend my motion. Pearce: When we presented our application for annexation the issue of the highway was significantly looked at from every perspective. In fact meetings before the city council were continued numerous times because City Council wanted additional feedback with respect to an answer to the question "will a landmark designation of this house prevent the highway from going through here"? And the answer to that was "No". And that is why I don't think it needs to be considered. Roger: I don't want to have to experience the kind of a problem there was when the Lixiviation plant was designated historical. And that kind of a problem could bend the access to where it makes it impossible to use. So consequently I see no historic significance in the site. Save the structure. The site without the structure, to me, is nothing. The structure is everything and I am willing to save that structure. ;'"- - Ami: I think you need to realize too that whatever comes across- -the light rail or highway, it is not going to stop at the edge of Bruce Berger's property if it comes that way. There are other resources involved. There are other buildings where we have designated entire sites. That is the way that we address things and again the entrance to Aspen may not come onto the Berger property. And in the future we don't want to have some building that is larger or incompatible with the resource put on that site. It is connected to it's site. Roll call vote: Tim, yes, David, yes, Sara, yes, Roger, no, Bruce, no. Roger then requested that the minority opinion be forwarded to Council. SOUKI 8040 GREENLINE AND CONDITIONAL USE REVIEWS 8040 HEARING Leslie made presentation as attached in record. Bruce: To applicant: Are you willing to proceed contrary to staff's recommendation that we table this item to consider these other suggestions that they have made or are you willing table it to work with staff to try to resolve those items. Brooke Peterson, attorney for applicant: I am willing, on behalf "..., of the applicant, to agree that we will continue to work with '._ 8 ,#'~.. PZM9. 21. 93 -- staff. However I would like to address the issue of re-designing the building. We are not willing to re-design the building. This is the approved plan that the Commission and the staff agreed upon through the Zaluba review. There was a mistake made when they went to look at the height limitation. We are going to bring that down. But the other design changes are appropriate for the site and will help the site rather than hinder it. And will help the visible nature of the structure. using drawings Alfred Betelsten, architect, explained to P&Z the changes to the house. Leslie: My recommendation in a re-design of the home concerns the height and the width of the home on the hillside is not related to the slight change in the shifting of the garage. My recommendation would be pertaining to the criteria in the 8040 and requesting elevations that they have to come down in. My recommendation is when you look at the criteria I contend to go up to the maximum height limit at the mid point of the roof which gives you the ability to go 5 feet over that and to stretch I believe almost 62 feet across the hillside is not an attempt to reduce the size of the home on the hill and blend the home in with the mountain. My comments are not based upon the shifting of the garage. My comments are based upon--this is a new review. This application needs to stand up to the criteria of the 8040 and that is one of the criteria. In addition--the 2 floors of the home--this is shown as a crawl space and in the lower level it was shown as an indoor pool. And one thing that we were talking about at staff also is if you took the main portion of the living area and pulled it back into the hillside then you also don't have the home sticking this far out of the hillside. And so you could probably reduce the home and pull it back in and not affect the living area. I requested new plans. I requested floor area and a total square footage. I did not get those in time for my memo to be done for you. Bruce: From my perspective I am trying to ignore the fact that there was any kind of approvals at all on this site before. We have a new application in front of us. Our job is to apply the 11 criteria to this application. I think that is what we need to do. It appears to me that we are going to end up tabling this tonight _ in any event. _ 9 ,- PZM9. 21. 93 -- I would entertain a motion to table not only the 8040 but also the ADU item. MOTION Roger: I so move. Tim seconded the motion. Leslie: I am also recommending denial of the accessory dwelling unit. The ADU where it is proposed does not really affect the design of the home. It is not adding onto the bulk and the mass of the home. The conditional use is the public hearing aspect of this review. My thought was that in my recommending denial you could get the public hearing out of the way. Roger: I withdraw my motion. MOTION /"~ Roger: I move to table action on the 8040 Greenline of the Souki hearing. "- Tim seconded the motion. Leslie: I have requested a new drainage and grading plan, new landscape plan, new revegetation plan. I would like to give staff and the applicant time to work out this retaining wall idea to explore it a little bit more, re-designing the home. We need more information for the Sanitation District and the Water Dept. That it be utility access to the property but since the Zaluba 8040 was approved and we started working on that it became very, very problematic. It is not as easy as it is shown on the map. An access permit from the County may be necessary for the portion of this road that is in the County. Most importantly that I think is going to take time to work out is we are trying to meet with the Forest Service and the Parks Dept, Engineering and ourselves to look at potentially moving the Nordic easement completely off of that lower portion of the road and up on the hillside. And the other biggie is the emergency access issue which the referral comments that we are now getting out of the Fire Marshal are different than what we were getting in 1990. And we need to try and resolve that. ~"'~',> '- 10 ,.-.. PZM9. 21. 93 - Bruce: I just want the applicant to know that there are 3 criteria in particular that I am concerned about. Those are 4, 6 and 7 without regard to whether the Zaluba complied with those criteria or not. I am concerned about whether this application complies wi th those criteria so you may need to address those before you come back to us. Everyone then voted in favor of the motion. CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR ADU PUBLIC HEARING Leslie made presentation as attached in record. ,'~ Peterson: Obviously the ADU that we proposed was designed to meet the goals of the Community Plan and design. I have some disagreement with Leslie that it is out of character with the neighborhood given that one of the houses immediately adjacent to this site is a duplex. I think that the property can support an ADU given what we have proposed to do and we are willing to state and specifically require that there will be no vehicles that the occupant of that unit will be allowed to have other than the vehicles that go with the house--that are owned by the owners of the house. - The neighborhood is close enough to town that the people will be walking to this property. The ADU is not going to put that much of an additional burden on either the neighbors or on the visual impact of the home. The neighborhood is a mixture of condominiums, employee housing, large single family homes, smaller single family homes and properties that have been there for a long time. The ADU would increase the neighborhood aspect of the community. Bruce opened the public hearing. John Kelly, attorney representing Jack and Carol Davis: My clients are opposed to the ADU based on the fact that the more density the more people are going to be on the road. We think that the site is basically inappropriate even for a single family. And to add another unit up there just compounds the problem. Also I think that if that unit is not there it would give the applicant an opportunity to downsize the building somewhat. Bob Hughes: I am representing the Thomas Crowman family: They own one of the units in the duplex. I need to reply to what Brooke said about that it is not inappropriate to have a duplex on here because my client's property is a duplex. That is to confuse apples with oranges. That access is right on ute Avenue. This is ,_ a very difficult site to get to. This is a site that ought to be __ 11 ."....-.... PZM9. 21. 93 -- developed with as minimum a size that is conceivable. It is a very constrained site. I don't know how anybody can enforce something like to tell the ADU occupant that only you can drive there. Your friends can't drive. The reality is that you are going to have twice as much vehicular traffic. You are going to have 2 families up there. Bruce: We have letters in our packets letters from the Rappaports objecting to this application. There being no further public comment Bruce closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS ,,-... Roger: The problem I have of restricting automobile use for the ADU is that then ADU would not be successfully used for what we would like ADUs used for. And that is occupied by a resident of this community. I have real problems with the ADU on that basis. The ADU without a restriction I do have a feeling that given the size, slope and location of that road that the people against the ADU do have a real valid point as far as traffic on that road. Jake: What is the size of the ADU? - Alfred Betelsten, architect: 420 square feet. Leslie: That is the net liveable square footage. Betelsten: And it is below grade. Jake: There is no secondary access? David: How many square feet are in the house? Betelsten: About 5,900. David: How many bedrooms? Betelsten: Five bedrooms and the ADU. Sara: As much as I would like to see the ADU in every residence I am going to vote against the ADU because of the condition that we must use for review. More than what Leslie said my problem is that the location, size, design and characteristics of the proposed conditional use minimize adverse effect. I think the ADU can only exaggerate adverse effect because it is _ such a sensitive site. _ 12 ,,-... PZM9. 21. 93 -- David: I agree with the comments of the staff that the ADU should be occupied. But until such time that we have enforcement to modify the ADU and to require occupancy to a full time resident or quasi employee I don't see that we have the ability to enforce that specifically. MOTION Sara: I move to deny the conditional use approve for the accessory dwelling unit finding that the provision of a second dwelling unit on this particular parcel is incompatible with the necessity to reduce development and use impacts on the site. I would like to reference condition #7 for review. Roger seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Tim, yes, David, no, Sara, yes, Roger, yes, Bruce, yes. Motion carried. Conditional use approval for ADU denied. /.....~ Bruce closed the public hearing. ',,-" SNOW OUEEN LODGE EXPANSION GMOS EXEMPTION AND SPECIAL REVIEW Kim made presentation as attached in record. Bruce: Let's assume somewhere down the road this lodge is sold to someone who has got all kinds of money and they make more than category #3 money but they want to buy the lodge, they want to live in it and they want to rent it. What happens at that point? Kim: It is accommodated through special review for the Housing Office. They have allowance for a special review for persons who may not meet category criteria. They believe that if someone does go forward to qualify as occupant of this unit and they exceed because they are part owner they can seek special review. Bruce: It does require future action. Kim: Right. They will have to get some kind of specific waiver for their particular condition. Bruce asked the applicant if they had any problem with any of the conditions of approval. ""'."......., '- 13 /-"'"-'" PZM9. 21. 93 "- Larry Ledingham: We have a couple of problems with the recommendations of the Engineering Dept. Things like somebody came out and checked the sidewalk out front and said that pursuant to us getting a building permit they thought we should replace part of the sidewalk. Well, we just put the sidewalk in 2 years ago and Cooper Avenue in that area slopes down to the sidewalk quite a bit and so in the winter time you get a lot of runoff and then it freezes on the sidewalk. So we either have to leave 3 inches of ice on the sidewalk or put a lot of ice melter down. That has caused the surface of the sidewalk to chip away. To me it is not really that big of a problem. There wasn't even a sidewalk there before. So we feel like we made an improvement by putting the sidewalk in. Kim: I dropped that definitely walkable. of them. as a condition of approval. The sidewalk is It is in great shape really compared to a lot One condition I have included is the adding of a fifth parking space. I feel as the added space of the employee unit and the fact that his previous space is now gong to be converted back to a guest room that we should ask for that added parking space for a total of five. F"""'"'' -',- Roger: Is the fence condition a problem for you? Ledingham: It looks like we are in this place where we are supposed to pay $320 for the city to say it is OK for the fence to be there or move it. The fence has been the for 30 years or more. I wonder of there are any conditions for that to be dropped or what we would have to go through. Kim: The fence is on the City right of way by about 2 or 3 feet. Roger: And doesn't the encroachment license cost $320? Kim: I believe so. Roger: I would like to say "Hey City, recognize it is there. It is not necessary to go through all the procedures". Kim: Right now it is an administrative review. Roger: Can we say then that they follow the new procedure of the Engineering Dept to recognize that the fence is located in the East Cooper right-of-way? .............. Ledingham: recognize excessive. To have to pay $320 to sign a piece of paper to say "We that the fence is 2 feet on city property" seems - 14 r"" -- - '- .,#""- ',,-. PZM9.21.93 Roger: How about "Prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant shall state in a letter to the Engineering Dept and recorded that they recognize the fact that their fence is located ont he East Cooper right-of-way and should the right-of-way be required by the City in the future that fence would have to go". MOTION Roger: I recommend approval of GMQS Exemption and Special Review for the FAR for the Category 3 deed restricted manager's unit to be voluntarily constructed at the Snow Queen Lodge with the conditions #1 through #4 of Planning Office memo dated September 21, 1993 with condition #5 being modified as above. And with condition #5 as stated on said memo. Tim seconded the motion with all in favor. David: For the record I want to inform anyone that if any little miner's cottage needs a new location the Deaf Camp has an approved site and there is an opportunity for tax credit. Bruce adjourned the meeting. Clerk 15