Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20060411 Aspen Planninl!: & Zoninl!: Commission Meetinl!: - Minutes - April 11, 2006 COMMENTS ............................................................................................................ 2 DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ............................................... 2 414 NORTH 1 ST STREET HALLAM LAKE ESA.................................................. 2 BOOMERANG LODGE PUD .................................................................................8 1 Aspen Planninl!: & Zoninl!: Commission Meetinl!: - Minutes - April 11, 2006 Jasmine Tygre opened the special meeting of the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission in Council Chambers at 4:30 pm. Commissioners Ruth Kruger, Dylan Johns, Steve Skadron, Brian Speck, Mary Liz Wilson and Jasmine Tygre were present. John Rowland and Brandon Marion were excused. Staffin attendance: John Worcester, City Attorney; Chris Bendon, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMENTS Chris Bendon asked for a P&Z Commissioner to serve on the Rio Grande COWOP. Mary Liz Wilson will serve on the Rio Grande COWOP. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST None stated. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (3/21): 414 NORTH 1ST STREET HALLAM LAKE ESA Jasmine Tygre opened the continued hearing for the 414 North 1 sl Street - Hallam Lake ESA. Chris Bendon distributed new drawing sets and a letter from Garfield and Hecht dated April 11 th with 6 exhibits attached that were just received. Bendon recapped the last meeting and Exhibit J explained the ESA; the Hallam Lake Bluff Review was highlighted. Bendon said that the environmental sensitive area contains a 15 foot setback that restricts the area in which building or structures were located. The applicant will relocate the construction staging area. Bendon stated the applicant submitted a complete application with the 1998 improvement survey and the mapping and top of slope; all the drawings were prepared by a landscape architect. John Worcester submitted a memo that was client attorney privileged; the commission could vote on making it public. The applicant will go over the effects ofthe staircase lighting. There were building code requirements for the lighting; Bendon referenced Exhibit K from the National Electrical Code, which the city used to regulate development in town and does require lighting of the stairway area. Tygre stated concern for the big packet just received at 4:40pm on the day of the public hearing. 2 Aspen Planninl!: & Zoninl!: Commission Meetinl!: - Minutes - April 11, 2006 Dave Lenyo, attorney for Mr. Lewis, said they have retained a lighting specialist to address some of the concerns: the construction staging area will take place on the lot next door that he recently purchased, Exhibit 22. Giles Thornely, landscape architect, utilized an aerial photograph of the pool area, recently acquired property, and access to the street to show the staging of the construction area. Lenyo used Exhibit 23 to show where the circulation purnps were located to alleviate any noise concerns. Thornely stated the room that housed the mechanical was completely underground. Michael Ernermann said that the heating system was located in the house in a concrete room below grade with an acoustically gasket door; there was no boiler only purnps and filters. Lenyo stated the liability insurance was submitted on page 3 of the subrnission, Exhibit 2. Lenyo said that page 4 item 5, Exhibit 27, was the Schmueser, Gordon, Meyer survey from 1998. Lenyo said on page 3 of the memo were the wildlife impacts per Mr. Dahmer. Lenyo stated the lighting in the stair structure was below grade as was the pool lighting and minimal lighting along the walkway. Lenyo said page 2 was from the lighting specialists showing the detail of the level of light power, which was minimal. Michael Ernermann stated the notes were now on the drawings and part of the packet showing the gasketed door. Ernermann noted the swimming pool sides and bottom were to be black plaster; the fixture around the bottom of the pool was a fiber optics linear piece cast into the walls. Ernermann provided a lighting study, Exhibit 1, from ISP in Florida. Ernermann provided a computer generated photo showing the pool, Lewis Exhibit 28; this was two 100ths of a foot candle; an office was 50 foot candles. Ernermann stated the lighting in the stairwell occurs underneath the nosing of wooden treads and shine downward to illuminate the surface of those treads and the treads,.which were below grade, had 19 foot candles. Ernermann stated that on any exterior door of a residential unit the IBC requires a little bit of lighting; a small recessed fixture, Exhibit 24, will be provided. Ernermann illustrated the ERCOLight Fixture (by turning off the lights in council chambers) to the commission and audience. This was the only above grade light fixture. Tygre said that her question about the lighting was if there was no lighting in the 10 foot structure then was the insurance company willing to insure the liability for 3 Aspen Planninl!: & Zoninl!: Commission Meetinl!: - Minutes - April 11, 2006 that structure or was it a safety hazard to have a transparent structure that would not have any lighting. Steve Skadron asked what necessitates a 10 foot stair tower. Lenyo responded the primary reason was an open staircase, unless it were covered the elements in the winter would go down into the stairwell and prevent anyone from safely coming up to access the pool. Ernermann said there was a further issue that was freezing; someone getting out of the pool and stepping onto the stairs without an enclosure could cause the next person problems with ice on the stairs. Tygre asked how can this stair structure not be lighted. Ruth Kruger had the same question because of the swimming pool and a requirement to light around a pool. Lenyo answered the lighting experts say there was adequate lighting for the safety concerns (addressed in their letter) and there was no requirement for every single thing in a backyard to be illuminated. Tygre restated concern for the transparency of the structure without illumination and added if it would be a safety hazard. Lenyo said if the lighting experts say its sufficiently lit and a computer drawing says that you can see it; he would not expect people to walk into it. Bendon asked if the insurance company was not going to want more light on this site and if they want more light for this feature or other features in the backyard, were you willing to come back to P&Z to discuss that additional lighting. Lenyo replied the answer to the first question was that they were prepared to extend insurance based on the current plan and in the future although they do not expect it, if they require additional lighting they would absolutely (a condition ofthe approval) come back to P&Z an submit a lighting plan in connection with any additional lighting. Public Comments: 1. Tom Cardamone, director of ACES, recognized the values of an ESA; about 15 years ago the neighbors, city and ACES board of trustees got together to create a zone that was about 5 acres of additional buffer protection to Hallam Lake on neighbors land, not ACES property, agreed and cooperated with this process. Cardamone said there were issues with creeping incrementalization into the ESA Zone in terms of screening or lack there of; lighting that may be inappropriate to the zone and perhaps noise issues. Cardamone asked for city cooperation in the Hallam Lake ESA Zone to look at compliance for all properties around Hallam Lake. Cardamone said his first step will be to talk to the neighbors about the . process and then involve the city. Cardamone stated ACES would be happy to revisit the ESA. Cardamone stated that ACES met with Jonathan Lewis and made several changes, which ACES was comfortable with. Cardamone said that they talked about adding some additional tree screening on the Hallam Lake side and shrubs around the stair structure on the Lewis side to keep people from walking into the structure. 4 Aspen Planninl!: & Zoninl!: Commission Meetinl!: - Minutes - April 11. 2006 2. Charles Hopton said the commission should review the intent of the protection of Hallam Lake. 3. Ted Gardenswartz, attorney for Mr. Nicholson, stated that he has not seen the new plans and inquired about the seating walls being changed. Bendon said those short seating walls were approved. Ernermann responded that the easterly most wall has been removed and was reflected on the drawings and the easterly edge of the pool terrace has been pulled back behind the 15 foot line. Gardenswartz said that Mr. Lewis has done a lot of hard work to make this application better than it was before, more complete and he should be commended for that. Gardenswartz said that commissioners need to look at the fact that Mr. Lewis will not own this property forever and the commission should put conditions of minimum light in the tower of .18 foot candles, make the ceiling of the tower non-reflective, the outdoor light will not exceed 3.4 foot candles, the pool bottom and sides were dark and the pool lighting was no greater than .02 foot candles and no light in the trees. Gardenswartz said there was a decibel level to establish and minimize the adverse impacts and be respectful of ACES programs. Gardenswartz stressed conditions of approval also on the size of the pool, pool cover, number and placement of seating walls, kind of glass and ensure the environment and aesthetics will be preserved. 4. David Guthrie, public, said that there was a phrase on County P&Z that was "material representation"; he said that the conditions had to be consistent and reciprocal. Guthrie said that he wanted it to be fair and keep everyone at the same standard. Lenyo addressed the issue of conditions raised by member of the public; Colorado Law does not allow conditions to deny what is otherwise a compliant application. Lenyo stated concern for requiring Mr. Lewis and not the other neighbors the regulatory decibels, use of his property in connection with ACES and those types of vague conditions that can't be imposed upon him when there were 22 other homes in the ESA when there was no similar requirement. Lenyo said the scope of this application was fairly limited and there was concern about taking away pre- existing uses on the property. Lenyo said they would be willing to have a condition that they would not develop those seating walls within the 15 foot zone and a condition subject to the City Parks approval for screening. Dylan Johns stated there was a lot going on, which mayor may not exist because of what was being proposed on site; after reading the code sections on ESA this 5 >._~..-,..,",-",,,...................-.,.,".. Aspen Planninl!: & Zoninl!: Commission Meetinl!: - Minutes - April 11, 2006 was in conformance with the review standards for the ESA. Johns said the ESA needs to be applied to the entire area around Hallam Lake not just one particular piece of property and that needs to be uniform. Johns said there were noise ordinances and the daytime levels were the same as offices. Johns said there have been material representations of what the lighting will be and how this will be done and if something was not part ofthe normal process then they would have to come back to P&Z and he would like to put that into the language of the approval. Johns said that he did not see much difference between and lawn party and a pool party as far as noise was concerned; the Given Institute was right next door and they do parties; there were a lot of users in the area that were not necessarily quiet. Johns found this met with the ESA Guidelines and supported the project. Steve Skadron said this application sat on a fine line for him between the Commission's responsibility to ensure development that was compatible and the Commissioners duty to meet specific review criteria. Skadron said the best decisions were made when those that are affected are heard from and in case of the letter from Tom Cardamone and John Katzenberg they asked for the 15 foot setback, which has been honored and the noise and lights do not diminish the aesthetic integrity of Hallam Lake. Skadron asked to add a condition that provides recourse for ACES in the event that the verbal representations by the applicant or future land owner regarding the noise and light do not in fact result in a negative impact to ACES aesthetic. Bendon said that the city enforces approvals and if ACES felt that the property was out of compliance with its representation then the city is responsible for enforcement and the City can't allocate the enforcement to another entity. John Worcester agreed and stated there is a process now that does exactly what you are asking and anyone could file a complaint with the code enforcement officer to go out and verify. Skadron requested conditions regarding the lighting and reflectivity of the pool. Mary Liz Wilson said that many of her questions have been answered and her main concerns were light and noise on the nature preserve, which was an asset to this community and needs to be protected. Ruth Kruger stated that she was conflicted about this application because of its effects on the bluff and the ESA however they have permission to build a pool. Bendon said the pool that they were contemplating in 1998 was in an area that was outside ofP&Z's jurisdiction so ifthey were to pursue that pool again it would be something that could be approved administratively with minimal criteria. Kruger asked what was currently in the 15 foot zone. Thornely replied that it was an at grade stone deck. Kruger asked if it was in their rights to build this. Bendon responded that it was in their rights and that was staffs analysis. 6 Aspen Planninl!: & Zoninl!: Commission Meetinl!: - Minutes - April 11, 2006 Brian Speck said the architect was excellent and shared some of the concerns regarding the future and it was important to be sensitive to those; some ofthe conditions could accommodate that concern. Specks said that it was a matter of where we wanted to be and be considerate of the environment and respect ACES; if you regulate, regulate the whole community as suggested by staff. Speck supported the application. Tygre noted that the land use approvals follow the land and not the people. Tygre said that she would entertain an approval of this based on a very specific mention of all of these conditions of approval primarily because it would affect this property; more specific lighting conditions and pool reflectivity. Tygre said it would be a good idea for the commission to go over the ESA legislature as a work session item and find where P&Z thinks the concerns were that should be addressed. Tygre said the applicant has made a good effort to minimize the negative impacts on ACES, which was what this was based on. Kruger stated there were rules in place for sound and light; she suggested a work session on the ESA and invite neighbors as well as ACES so that all of the people involved would have to comply to the same standards. Johns agreed the lighting and noise ordinances were created for a general set of circumstances. Bendon stated that ACES work with the neighbors on the issues to be brought to P&Z as opposed to staff and P&Z trying to accomplish that first. John Worcester suggested Section 5 list all of the materials representations: work closely with City of Aspen Parks Department to determine the additional screening; no seating walls will be built within the 15 foot setback; no additional lights will be added to the development area; all construction material represented will be used; non-reflective paint will be used on the inside of the tower; the bottom of the pool will be constructed with non-reflective paint with lights no greater than those represented in the application; no additional lights outside other than those identified in the application; the size of the pool will not increase or decrease as proposed in the application; any changes from these material representations shall require additional approvals from the Planning & Zoning Commission. Worcester asked the applicant acknowledge that the list were the representations made. Lenyo replied that was correct; there were some existing seating walls, which will remain; the lighting should be no additional lighting within that 15 foot zone. Ernermann asked what if a future owner wanted to fill in the pool. Worcester responded that they would have to come back to P&Z. 7 Aspen Planninl!: & Zoninl!: Commission Meetinl!: - Minutes - April 11. 2006 MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to approve Resolution #10, Series 2006, with conditions approving with conditions the Hallam Lake Bluff Review for the development of a pool with associated decking, a fire pit, a stair enclosure and an underground connection to the residence at 414 North First Street to include the Section 5 language; seconded by Brian Speck. Roll call: Johns, yes; Wilson, no; Skadron, yes; Speck, yes; Kruger, yes; Tygre, no. APPROVED 4-2. Discussion of motion: Skadron said the primary concern was the lighting; why not place more specifics (like foot candles). Bendon said the only suggestion would not be on the foot candles but the number of fixtures and wattage of the fixtures that were represented. Skadron said there needs to be some flexibility for the minimum safety so why in the future would something be required differently then that. Bendon responded that a future owner might say that he wanted three times as many lights; then they have to come back to P&Z and convince P&Z the needs for three times as many lights was needed and fits within the requirements of the ESA. Bendon stated that he would email the revised Resolution to all of the P&Z Commissioners and John Worcester. PUBLIC HEARING: BOOMERANGLODGEPUD Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for the Boomerang Lodge PUD and apologized to any members from the public but the hearing was to be continued. MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to continue the public hearingfor the Boomerang Lodge PUD to May 2nd; seconded by Dylan Johns. All infavor, APPROVED 6-0. MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to review the ESA; seconded by Mary Liz Wilson. All infavor, APPROVED 6-0. Adjourned 6:45pm ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 8