Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19950425 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 25. 1995 +,..~._-- Chairman Bruce Kerr called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Those in attendance we::"e Jasmine Tygre, Roger Hunt, Sara Garton, Tim Mooney, and Steven Buettow. Excused were Robert Blaich and Marta Chaikovska. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS There was a discussion between Mooney and Stan Clauson regarding the small lodges. Mooney was concerned about small lodging code changes and the Planning Office. Clauson reassured Mooney that staff was communicating well with the small lodges and their particular interests and concerns. STAFF COMMENTS Leslie Lamont informed commission there would be site visits preceding the May 2nd Meeting from 4:00 until 5:00 p.m.; Parks Department storage and office expansion and an Affordable Housing project. The official P&Z Meeting will begin at 5:00 p.m. Lamont also passed out a draft Residential Design to the Commission from Aspen's Residential Design (attached in record). /'~'" Kim Johnson passed out a memorandum regarding the Farish Hallam Lake Bluff ESA Review. On April 5th, the project was reviewed by the FAR Overlay Committee. Committee members from the P&Z became aware that certain information included in the application for the FAR Overlay Review was not presented at the P&Z review for Hallam Lake ESA compliance. Staff has discussed the matter with City Attorney John Worcester and it was indicated that P&Z may want to consider a motion to void the original approval and reconsider the ESA review based on more accurate information regarding the project. Gideon Kaufman, attorney, stated he did not understand what the whole purpose of the review process is, since the product was approved and same product that is ~eing built, and he did not see where anything was changed in terms of ESA. He felt there needed to have some definitive statements put on the record. He stated when he and Dick had their initial meeting with staff the issue of what was taking place was discussed with Kim. He said is one looked at the minutes of the meeting, it was explained at that particular point of the need and desire to preserve the foundation. The whole issue that was put before you at that particular meeting was the problems we had in terms of preserving the footprint, we had all those trees that were there; we can, very easily, if required, add to the existing walls and end up in the exact same '<>'"._".. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 25. 1995 -, - situation. He stated it makes no sense to do that because it is more costly and the end result is the same thing. He did not understand what the new information is; the facts haven't changed, the footprint hasn't changed, the desire to build in the same location, the same situation hasn't changed, the only thing that appears to be different is the certainty that some members didn't realize that the walls were coming down as opposed to having a second wall added to them. MOTION Garton moved to reconsider and void the original approval of the ESA Review. Tygre seconded, vote commenced with two abstentions (Mooney and Hunt), unanimous approval. Motion carried. MINUTES Garton moved to approve minutes of April 4, 1995 and the minutes of April 18, 1995 (City/County Growth Management Commission). Hunt seconded, all voted in favor, motion carried. Chairman Kerr opened the public hearing. ASPEN CENTER FOR PHYSICS The proposal was first submitted on April 4, 1995 and tabled until April 25, 1995. On April 12th, Brad Zeigel presented six additional design schemes to the HPC and Harry Teague, architect, and Brad Zeigel, representing the Aspen Center for Physics, met with staff on April 14. Kim Johnson presented on behalf of staff and stated that Scheme C was recommended by the Planning Office with 22 conditions of approval (attached for record). Brad Zeigel and Harry Teague again presented on behalf of the Physics Center. Chairman Kerr asked if the Conditions of Approval were based only on Scheme C or did they apply to any of the schemes. Johnson answered that all schemes applied. Johnson also mentioned the Master Plan that Teague had presented and the possibility of an additional research facility for the future. If a solution is made regarding multiple building structures, it would not preclude future development. PUBLIC COMMENTS Ferdinand Belz, on behalf of Lot 10, adj acent to the Physics Center. Requested to maintain 30 ft. between his property line and ...- 1 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 25, 1995 .....--- '-.. the Physics Center, and that the commercial building be viewed as a commercial building, two-story. He preferred Scheme G. Ramona Markalunas, neighbor neighborhood plan. She voiced on the neighborhood. of Physics Center, submitted a her concern of a "great wall" effect Gideon Kaufman, attorney, spoke on behalf of the Aspen Institute. He was sympathetic toward the neighborhood, but supported the Physics. Charles Collins passed out his recommended site plan which he had drawn up and presented it to the Commission. I. McA. Cunningham, submitted a letter, for the record, opposing the Physics Center. Mr. Cunningham is a neighbor and stated again his concerns against the Physics Insitute; the lighting issue has not been addressed, and the structure of the proposed building he felt was a very bad plan, and the destruction of trees. Bill Dunaway, a property owner in the City, spoke in support of the Physics Center and spoke adversely of some of the "obtrusive" individual houses in the neighborhood. ,,~...._. Sven Alstrom, a newly appointed HPC member, said that HPC did not struggle with this proposal. The resolution that was passed tried to get away from issues of building geometry. The HPC looked at guidelines such as community character, scale, cultural value, and neighborhood character. The HPC did not select any schemes. Preference that the Gillespie Walking Path be entertained was an item and secondly, that the project be set back as far from North Street as possible. On a personal level Alstrom stated he preferred a one building configuration. Ramona Markalunas submitted a neighborhood letter to the Clerk, for the record. Chairman Kerr closed the Public Hearing. Tygre asked Teague and Zeigel what the heighth of the proposed building would be on the western end next to Lot 10. Teague answered it would be 17 ft. at the peak. Tygre expressed concern over the trail particularly as it goes between the western end of the building and Lot 10 and the heigth. She did not want a "tunnel effect". She favored the one building versus several buildings. Chairman Kerr questioned the triangular projection in the plans and ~,~'- -- .1 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 25. 1995 '''- Teague stated it was an overhanging roof. Garton expressed support for Scheme B, mainly to support the physicists in having a building that works for them. Garton felt that the cottonwoods during the site visit were wonderful and with the setback that is proposed by Scheme B, along with some low stone fictures, she felt it would be terrific - not a "great wall" effect She really questioned any kind of urban feel going into that campus area in regard to Condition 6 and paving. Buettow thought that Scheme "D" had advantages In function, existing trail and should be given consideration. MOTION Mooney moved to approve the Aspen Center for Physics' Amendment to the Aspen Meadows Final SPA Development Plan shown in Scheme "B", with conditions listed in the Planning Office memorandum dated 4/25/95. I also move to approve Growth Management Exemption and Special Review for Parking in the Academic Zone. All material representations by the applicant will be considered and followed up on. I amend that colloquium can be used by the community for non-profit type activity during hours that are compatible with the r.... residential neighborhood that it is included in. Garton seconded, roll call vote commensed and vote was 5 approved, 1 (Buettow) _. opposed. Motion carried. BOOGIES DINER GMOS EXEMPTION CHANGE IN USE Mary Lackner, Planner presented. Applicant is seeking approval to expand the kitchen area of the Boogies Diner by 249 net leasable sq. ft. and convert a two-bedroom employee dwelling unit into a one-bedroom unit. The applicant, Lenny Weinglass, was represented by Kim Weil from Bill Poss & Associates. Weil requested that the unit be a Category 3 Unit as a new deed restriction and Lackner stated that was alright with staff. Tygre was concerned about the precedent that gets set on deed restricting, even a portion of a unit. Lackner agreed that it has not been fully explored. Tygre stated in approving a two-bedroom dwelling unit into a one-bedroom unit commercial space, in effect it would be removing a previous deed restriction for a two-bedroom unit. /"" , MOTION '--. .i ,,""""" PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 25. 1995 '"",-, Mooney moved to approve the Boogies Diner GMQS Exemption for a change in use that adds 249 sq. ft. of net leasable area, subject to the conditions recommended in the April 25, 1995 Planning Office memorandum. I am amending Condition 1 to a Category 3 unit. Hunt seconded, voting commensed, 5 approved, 1 (Tygre) opposed (for reason above), motion carried. PITKIN COUNTY JAIL EXPANSION FINAL SPA AMENDMENT AND GMOS EXEMPTION The Planning and Zoning Commission tabled this request on the April 18, 1995 meeting. Mary Lackner, Planning Office, and Temple Glassier representing Pitkin Co. Board of Co. Commissioners presented. The applicant submitted a new site plan and new roof plan. The applicant is seeking to add approximately 1,500 sq. feet onto the pitkin County Jail. Hunt commented the addition of screening on the top floor was very effective. It screened the units, and also tied in with the architecture of the addition. Glassier stated she was a little worried about the screening on the roof because it could cause leaks in the future, but there will be a 6-inch gap. ',_. Garton asked if the applicant had considered going underground and Glassier responded that they had considered that option, but the radon levels were very high, so mitigation would be very expensive to be underground. Mary Lackner stated that on Condition 3, the architectural plan had been discussed dated March 1, 1995. She recommended amending that to also add the rendering roof. MOTION Hunt moved to recommend to City Council approval of the proposed SPA amendment to add approximately 1,500 sq. ft., office-type space to the jail, subject to conditions I-lIon Planning Office memorandum dated 18 April 1995 with Amendment 3 being amended to say; the architectural plan dated March 1, 1995 and those renderings presented at this meeting. Mooney seconded motion, vote was unanimous in favor, motion carried. Chairman Kerr adjourned the meeting at 8:15 p.m. "-- ~ ,,""""" ~'--- '--... .Q. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 25. 1995 Respectfully submitted: , .6l1D.>-LOYl '--11'l . ~ClJU-cLll 0 Sharon M. Carrillo, Deputy City Clerk