Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19941206 J ~)( RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 6. 1994 Vice Chairlady Jasmine Tygre called meeting to order at 4:30 P.M. Answering roll call were Steven Buettow, Tim Mooney, Sara Garton, Roger Hunt and Jasmine Tygre. Marta Chaikovska, Robert Blaich and Bruce Kerr were excused. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS There were none. STAFF COMMENTS Kim: Regarding the Little Cloud Subdivision and the berm that we discussed last meeting. I put this in front of the County Planners who got back to me and said that they did not have a landscaping plan as part of their submission. Therefore the 6 foot berm is not part of anybody's official review. They do consider it a landscaping element and if it is not taller than 6 feet it is not a regulatory issue. She does agree that because it is on top of the railroad bed that it looks higher. The reality is she said "Wait for the homes to go in there and the berm will not be such an issue". Kim presented pictures of the mechanical equipment on the Aj ax Tavern and there was discussion on this. She stated that staff doesn't believe that there is a terrible incongruity between what was submitted and what is up there now. Roger: I take issue with you. Yes there is because what they are showing there is basically baffles which tend to hold the sound of the fans up--there is something around those turbo fans here in their original submission that it helps as far as the noise if you are down in the Hunter Avenue Mall. When those things are on and you are down below you hear them screaming. If it were properly baffled as they had originally submitted, there would be at least less of that. Sara: Did they get extra height because they were going to enclose? Roger: Yes. The mechanical was supposed to be all contained in the roofline. We have no control over the heater vents- -the chimneys. Those will be there. But from this drawing here it was inferred that those chimneys, because these are chimneys in the drawing, would go up there. Instead they stuck their mechanical vents on top of those chimneys and put the chimneys out where it happened to be a little more convenient for them. Under that roof is mechanical stuff and they got that extra height in that area to hide all the mechanical. Kim: We will work on it and come back in a couple of weeks. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were none. MINUTES NOVEMBER 1. 1994 Roger: I move to adopt minutes of November 1, 1994. Sara seconded the motion with all in favor. AJAX TAVERN/LITTLE NELL SPA AMENDMENT Kim presented affidavit of posting. I received one letter in support of this application. She then made presentation as attached in record. Jasmine asked if the applicants had any problems with the conditions of approval. ?: No. Jasmine asked for public comment. There was none. MOTION Roger: I move to recommend approval of the Ajax Tavern Amendment to Little Nell SPA to allow 121sf of new net leasable area for the espresso cart and the sandwich/pizza grill on the patio adjacent to the restaurant with conditions as outlined #1 through #4 on Planning Office memo dated December 6, 1994. (attached in record.) Footnote: That within the presentation that all the development is going to be within the existing limits of the patio as we know it now. Sara seconded the motion. Steve: I view this whole area as a transition between the more intensive uses of the restaurant itself and the hotel and then the outdoor dining which is more casual. And you have the skiing out here. So consequently when you go to a restaurant the preferred table is not right next to the kitchen. I see this as kind of impacting the people who are sitting out there. Sure, they might get their food a little quicker. I see this as a prime place to sit and watch the people skiing down and watch the activity on the mountain. So I would tend to vote against this. I would like to see this as a transition area to keep the more intensive uses inside and let the people dine in peace without having pizza ovens and all these activities going on right next to them. 2 Tim: I think it is naive for us to call this 121 net leasable additional feet. I think this dramatically changes the nature of the whole patio. To say that there aren't going to be bus people and wait people and more employee impacts and more square footage that basically is another floor of seating area for a restaurant- -I think we are crazy not to look at that. And to go with the idea that the people are going to sit outside instead of inside and it is going to be one vacant space inside and one full space outside and that it was going to be the same thing, doesn't make sense to me. So to say that we are only having employee mitigation of $6,000 and to say that this only 121 net leasable feet I don't know how we are interpreting that. To me this is going to be another whole available restaurant space and another additional entity to the tavern and that they are now encouraging people to get their food outside, sit here and the whole impacts. We are creating more space where people can buy additional food items that aren't being sold inside, sit outside. This is another thing. To say that the patio is going to stay the way it is and that people are going to walk up here and get a pizza or coffee and then go and sit in the gondola and eat it and the actual dining space is going to be up the gondola or walking around town with food in their hand is really not what is going on here. Sara: I don't view it as that. I think the patio has such intense use already for those 4 months that they are asking. The only thing they are doing is offering a little sustenance with their beverage. I don't think that is going to increase any more busing, any more wait people than is already there. There are already beer and bars set up there. So all it is doing is offering some food. If we haven't properly mitigated for how intense that patio is being used-- Kim: That goes back to the whole issue of whenever we allow outdoor dining, do we count that as net leasable from the __?__ rather than our open space definition. We know that is a problem. Jasmine: It is a problem. And I share a lot of Tim's concern. I also agree with Sara that this has always been a place of really intense people activity. Even going back to the old building there was always food service out there. But it was all off to the side. It was back more against the building. But people did tend to go and buy their own hot dogs and hamburgers and carry them out. I am not sure that this operation is going to be the same type of thing. And I think people have changed. People of the old days were much more likely to go and get their own hamburgers. There is a greater proportion of today's guest population that expects to be served. So I really think that there should be some way that we can monitor this after a year and see whether the employee mitigation is appropriate or not. 3 Kim: We chose the highest range allowed by the code and applied it to this amount of square foot which is very consistent with how we have always measured this type of stand-alone commercial space. Jasmine: We do have to look into this. I am convinced that there are many businesses in town who are following the guidelines and the guidelines do not bear enough relation to reality. Sara: I agree with staff's recommendation that if they use it more than the 4 months they have to come back and revise and pay additional employee mitigation. ROLL CALL VOTE Steven, no, Tim, yes, Sara, yes, Roger, yes, Jasmine, yes. LANGLEY SUBDIVISION. REZONING. SPECIAL REVIEW. GMOS EXEMPTION AND LANDMARK DESIGNATION Jasmine re-opened the public hearing. Leslie made presentation as attached in record. Langley?: We have tried to respond to everyone's concerns. The ones we haven't are in the case of the historic barn, the 3 foot setback. We are restricted because of the size of the barn. We cannot make the barn narrower than it is. It should not be an encumbrance to the viewplane. The setback on the eastern side we moved to 4 feet and again we are trying to be sensitive to the neighbors with the full realization that there is nothing going on back there. There is no access. There is no ingress. There is no egress. There is nothing going on. So with the 4 feet and the 5 in their setback we thought there was plenty of room to the back. We did eliminate 1 parking space. The reason was to get trash recycling and transformers and utilities there. Jake Vickery, architect: Explained changes since last meeting. Langley: The only thing that we could possibly do on the back property is instead of the 5 foot setback on the far side and if there is still a big problem with the 3 foot on the other side is just take everything over 1 foot and that would at least get 4 feet on each side. Bob: I have talked with the fire marshal and he has no problem whatsoever with the internal setback. Jasmine asked the applicant if they had any problem with the conditions. 4 Bob: On fireplaces, fire places #3c a restriction against future installation of wood stoves. Would that include if we wanted some gas in the units? Leslie: No. It is wood stoves. Bob: On #16 C b--We have got 13 and 1/2 feet now between these 2. Previously we had 12 and we are constricted there by putting trash and recycling back here. That is why we couldn't move this back. We had to keep it where it was. I have met with Dave Tolen and if we can get certain front for the front part we will build category 3. to do category 3. And the family that is going to be unit qualifies for category 3 or category 4. things on the I would like occupying the PUBLIC COMMENT Jim Curtis: When the Langleys came before the Housing Board we were very complimentary of their effort and very supportive of their effort and I would like to relay those thoughts tonight. Also another thing that was pointed out--the 2 free market units in front and also the proposed free market unit in the back are relatively "small homes" compared to Aspen of today. And even though they are free market in nature their size would make those affordable to someone living in the community. And we also considered that and noted that in our discussion. And I would encourage P&Z to note the same things. Mark Tye: that would alley as a barn c and I wonder about if the parking space was angled or that move the historical barn another foot closer to the possibility of creating more space between historical cottage d? I see that there is 8 foot between new barn e and new cottage d. It is my recollection from last meeting that the majority of the commissioners felt that my concerns about the setback--granted it is only 2 feet--but I still think that is important. It was my understanding that the majority of the Commissioners felt that any property should stick within the guidelines as they are now as opposed to imposing on basically my rights of having setbacks that I would have to follow if I was to build. So being that there is 8 feet between e and d and she did mention that possibility of moving everything over but there is 3 feet there that they could move it to satisfy the situation that I have been addressing. There is 8 feet between e and d and there is 6 between c and d and so there is another foot or so to be moved in that direction. John Humphrey: I live in the Villager. I have the same concerns I had last time--the setbacks. I don't think it is unreasonable 5 that minimum setbacks be met. 5 feet is an awfully short distance. The Commission is here to protect my life, safety, health and welfare. It is 10 feet--5 each side. I think the minimum of 5 feet is not unreasonable. We shouldn't have to live with the mass of this development. I think the developer should have to live with their own mass and their own crowding. I would like to see the Commission at least go for the minimum setback of 5 feet on all sides of this. Ron Crajian: When I have the unit right next door to historical cottage a and it is a 2 story townhouse. My concern is there is 32 feet between historical cottage a and b. I don't know why so much space when the 2 buildings are being pressed against the neighborhood buildings. We have 2 stories. It is going to cut out light. We are going to lose our view of Ajax Mountain. And I don't see--I am new to this game--why the 32 feet? Why not bring the buildings in a little closer? Bob: We are trying to keep as much open area as possible. If we need to conform by another foot and that is what the Commission determines we will. Marsha Goshorn: What we tried to do is maintain that corridor between the units. Actually every building on the site is lower than the height of the Villager. On the b unit we have the second floor stepped back even more from the deck so that is being even more sensitive. Stewart?: There was much coughing and clearing of throats during this man's time making his statement unclear. Amy Amidon: I want to remind you that we are preserving 2 historic structures here and that is a constraint in terms of what they can do on the site. And I think that the setback variances that they have come down to at this point are not a lot to ask for. Mark: It doesn't sound like the neighbors are asking for a real lot. We are talking a foot here and a foot there. And that is about it. Other than that we are saying "Just go for it. It is great. II There being no further public comment Jasmine closed the public portion of the hearing. Sara: If we allow this at P&Z level is the City Council going to stop it cold? Leslie: Your recommendation is what I take to City Council. Sara: Can this parking still work with the tree? 6 Jake: The tree is right in the middle of the garage door. If we don't move the tree we start to screw up the plans. If the tree has to stay there we will have to deal with it somehow. Langley: We want the tree to survi ve. We are hopeful and optimistic that it will be replanted and survive. We want it on the property. Sara: I have to agree with Amy that we are gaining 2 historic structures. I would hate to see this squished together any more than it is--all pushed together in the center. I think that is an important corridor for light and for street presence for people passing by. You have maintained as many corridors of light as you can throughout the project. So I wouldn't ask for any more. Tim: I am going to vote for this. I think that if we want to keep going around and around and just pick this to death we should make points that variances in the setbacks really aren't necessary, that we can move these buildings together. The argument about the play yard for the kids to me doesn't hold that much water. There are thousands of acres of national forests and the kids are going to be gone on their bikes and in the parks. So I don't get that. But I do get a balance in the project. I like the way the house in the back in the middle does have a corridor to see the street. I do like the way the buildings are clustered instead of one big apartment building. I do get the idea about the variance in the roof and the decks and the garages. I think it is a good project. It is not perfect for everybody. But there has been a lot of compromise here and there is a lot of thought and good intentions here. I am going to vote for it. Roger: I like the project with the separate buildings as opposed to one megalith that we could get on this property. The setbacks do concern me. One of my biggest concerns is this 3 feet. That is really not very much. What if a fireman has to get into there? That does concern me. I would like to get that up at least another foot. As far as the other historical cottage--is that being moved to that spot? Bob: It is being picked up and moved. The historic part of it would be as you are looking at it the right hand side of it is the historic. Roger: On that east side setback I don't see another foot into this area of the ? courtyard as being so sacra sank as far as that setback is concerned. I am sensitive to the argument that this is a very small structure. And so I don't mind go~ng into the setback so much from the point of view as an impact to the adjacent property. I would like to get another foot here and another foot there. And 7 I think we could live with that because 4 feet would be sufficient for fire fighting purposes here with that small a structure. And then get this to our standard setbacks. I don't see the just- ification for the non-standard setback on this site here. Leslie: So your opinion is a 5 foot side yard setback in the front for historical cottage a. 4 feet for the historic barn c. Steve: As far as setback I see it as being a tradeoff here on the east/west axis between these 2 buildings here we have 7 feet of open space in here in trading off just for one foot here. And then over here between cottage band c we have 13 feet of open space here next to this property in relation to just 3 feet of the setback there. So we are gaining a lot in terms of the space between the buildings and we are losing a little bit in the exactness of our setback requirement. Jasmine: So you would be inclined to accept the proposed setbacks as proposed by the applicants? I agree with Roger. I think that if wherever possible for safety reasons if nothing else that the exterior setbacks are important. I don't think that losing a foot from historical cottage a is going to make a major difference. On the other hand I don't think it is going to make a major difference to the neighbors. But at the same time you are keeping them within the legally required setbacks. And to me that is a plus. My concern about the historical barn c is not as great because it is such a small structure. But I really think that if there is a way that the applicants can get even another foot there to accommodate the concern of the neighbor I think that that would be desireable. I think if you went to 4 feet considering the size of the building I think that that would be a great help for the neighbor. I would find that acceptable. Langley: If we combine some of these things in the sense you move this over a foot and you move this over a foot and then the cottage d some of the corridor gets--you are not talking just a foot. You are talking 2 feet. And the balance--I go back to what Amy said. The only places we are asking for variances are on the historic entities. Jasmine: I think in historical cottage a I really don't think you are going to lose that much because it is going to be coming from the 32 foot courtyard. I don't think that is really a major problem. I am a little concerned about c. and again it is such a small structure that I am not as concerned about it. I don't see that the moving of historical cottage a would be all that much of a compromise. Discussion regarding tree here. Marsha: The thing about the tree--there are 2 other trees that 8 PZM11.22.94 Leslie: It was approved as conditional use review. Laura Blocker also. Both of those properties are within this subdivision. Elva Fitzpatrick: I have lived in this community for 32 years. We knew when we bought the property that we had covenants and that ADUs were not allowed. We have an architectural control group and every time plans are submitted they are submitted to this group. Doug's plans are not approved with an ADU. And I wonder too sitting here listening, do our covenants--how much bearing do they have? Do you go over our heads on that? We always thought that this is our neighborhood. We have our covenants. And that each person must abide by these covenants. Mr. Allen knew that when he bought. And at our last meeting--I have the minutes--I took the minutes and I have all the proxies. The minutes are not approved. But I would ask that you put off making your decision. Roy Vroom: I just wanted to put on record I originally subdivided that property back in 1958. The covenants except for one corner definitely prohibited more than a one-family dwelling of any kind. As far as I am concerned those covenants still stand. Anything that exists now I would look upon as bandit units because I never approved them. I never heard or was even asked to vote on any of the current so-called ADUs. I don't even know where they are. I __ still own a lot right next door to Mr. Allen so I am obviously concerned. In fact so concerned as much as I was back in 1958. I had to sue Pitkin County to remove a gravel crusher and an asphalt batch plant right across Cemetery Lane. And I won! They did remove it. I am vehemently against this. Mike Lux: I live at 1325 Mountain View for 7 years. I also have the privilege of being the president of the homeowner's association during the term where Laura Blocker and Ernie Frywald got their ADUs approved. The covenants as I read them does restrict duplexes. At the meeting that Elva mentioned we had a vote and I don't know if you got the score there but I would say that the ADU unit in question was approved by the jury of the voters of our subdivision. And I think it should be approved. It is already been established that the units have been built. I am sure Mr. Allen wouldn't apply for an ADU unit if Ord #1 wasn't in place nor would Laura Blocker. This is something that is brought on by the Ord #1 being in place. Mrs. Stapleton: The minutes in question that Mike is talking about and Elva brought up--they have not been approved. There isn't a 2/3rds majority to pass the ADU. The proxies that were for the ADUs were all copies so I question their being legitimate. So we cannot use those minutes. They are not valid. 9 concern about the setbacks. But if at all possible try to increase the setbacks closer to our standard setbacks unless there is a really good reason at the HPC level. These are historic structures that are being moved into that position from an already existing position. I would like to see both of those setbacks increased by 1 foot--historic cottage a an historic barn c. It was then decided not to attache this to this already existing motion. Everyone then voted in favor of the motion. MOTION Roger: I move to pass on information to the City Council that because the historic structures are being moved into their place, we would encourage that the setbacks for the historic structures be increased 1 foot from what they are shown on this site plan. That is 5 feet for cottage a and 4 feet for historic barn c. But we realize that here may be some compelling reason for HPC to have these setbacks. We would like to have those setbacks increased to as standard setbacks as possible. Tim seconded the motion. I think Roger's point is well taken that these are less historic because they are being moved into these locations to create this complex. I think it is commendable that they are retaining and maintaining the historic character. But I think that Roger's point is important and HPC should hear it from us. Jasmine: Part of our concern is that we all have similar feelings about the project. We would like to make it as good a project as possible. We would also like to make a project that will cause as little grief to the neighbors as possible. I think the neighbor's concerns have not been unreasonable or unreasonably expressed. I think we would be remiss as a Commission if we didn't take those factors into account and I think that it is our obligation to point these things out to HPC. ROLL CALL VOTE Steven, yes, Timl yes, Sara! no, Roger, yes, Jasmine, yes. MOTION Sara: I move to approve special review for parking and open space on Parcel 2 of East Cooper Court with the condition as outlined in staff's memo dated December 6, 1994. 10 Roger seconded the motion with all in favor. MOTION Sara: I move to recommend to Council approval of GMQS exemption for the development of 3 dwelling units on Parcel 2--one free market, one resident occupied and one category 3 with the conditions outlined in the staff memo dated December 6, 1994. Roger seconded the motion with all in favor. KRAUT PROPERTY SPECIAL REVIEW Leslie made presentation as attached in record. Jim Curtis: The I-level garage was approved at 55 spaces and we are proposing to go up to 58 with the 3 additional spaces being available for the public. As the project is under construction and on a continual basis we are looking for ways to increase revenues and decrease costs to help reduce the public subsidy amount on the project. And by potentially adding the 3 additional spaces for either lease or sale that can generate up to an additional $75,000 to reduce the subsidy on the project. Roger: I don't have any conceptual problem at all with this. I think it is an excellent idea. Three more lease spaces in this area is great. Curtis: We will condominiumize all of the spaces and then the 31 that go to the public will be either leased or sold based on Council decision. MOTION Jasmine: I will entertain a motion to approve the amendment to the on-site parking plan for 715 East Hyman Avenue with condition as outlined in staff's memo dated December 6, 1994. Roger: So move. And add it is an increase in spaces from 55 to 58 total spaces. Sara seconded the motion with all in favor. SU CAS A ELEVATOR VIEW PLANE REVIEW Leslie made presentation as attached in record. MOTION Roger: I move to approve the Wheeler Opera House Viewplane review for the elevator shaft to extend 42 inches and the vent stack 12 11 review for the elevator shaft to extend 42 inches and the vent stack 12 inches above the existing roof top at 315 East Hyman as represented on the submitted plans with the conditions #1 through #4 in Planning Office memo dated December 6, 1994 with an amendment of condition #2 adding the words to the sentence "insofar as possible as determined by City staff--in other words Building and Planning" . Jasmine asked if that was fine with the applicant. Brooke: We will work with Gary on it. Meeting was adjourned. Time was 6:45 P.M. 13