Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19831108 FORM" C.F.HOECKHQ.B.& L.CJ. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Regular Meeting November 8, 1983 Planning and Zoning Commission Chairman Harvey called the meeting to order at 5:10 p.m. with Jasmine Tygre, Pat Fallin, Welton Anderson, Lee Pardee, David White, Roger Hunt present. Commissioner Comments stream Margin Review Molny/Eubank Roger Hunt asked the status of the KSPN antenna. planning office, told P & Z the HPC came up with They are waiting for the person who installed it to town and move it. Colette Penne, a solution. to come back Lee Pardee pointed out the county P & Z had reached an agreement with the county commissioners. The county P & Z felt they would spent lots of time on an issue, and the county commissioner would make a decision without consulting the county P & Z. Pardee said the commissioners have agreed whenever they make changes of substance in something recommended by P & Z, they will send a representative back to P & Z to explain their actions, and to get a reaction from P & Z. Pardee suggested P & Z look into this with the City Council. Harvey said he will meet with the Mayor and discuss this. Colette Penne, planning office, presented a plan and told P &Z this is a request to extend a deck on the second floor of a house by 5 feet. This is a cantilevered deck, which will not impact existing vegetation of the stream bank or the flood plain. Ms. Penne pointed out the Code says any development within 100 feet of the high water line of the Roaring Fork river should go through stream margin review. Ms. Penne told P & Z the conditions recommended are that the deck extension be no more than 5 feet east and 7 feet north. Harvey asked why anyone cared what size this is if it is 20 feet above grade. Ms. Penne said this is to insure P & Z this is a small extension of the deck. Pardee asked how far from the river are the existing improvements. Robin Molny said 10 to 15 feet. Pardee suggested the approval contingent upon the fact the trail easement will not move. . Chuck Roth read "said easement being 10 feet in width easterly from the most easterly corner of the improvements located on the MOlny/Eubank property". Harvey suggested re-recording this so the trail easement is from the corner. Gary Esary, assistant city attorney, suggested recording the development plan so the applicant does not have to go through the subdivision exception process. Esary said the applicant can record a new trail easement rather than a plat. Harvey asked that the architect measure where the river actually is and refer to it in easement document. Ms. Fallins moved to approve the stream margin review subject to the planning office memorandum of 11/8/83, conditioned upon compliance with the engineering memorandum of 10/31/83 with the exception of #4; and further conditioned that the applicant will draft for the city attorney's approval a new easement document to be recorded which will describe the 10 foot trail easement as going 10 feet from the southeasterly most corner of the improve- ments at grade level and applicant will pay for recordation; seconded by White. Pardee said this plat looks like the river is 75 feet from the house when it is only 15 feet. The P & Z discussed amending the plat, and the reviews this would require. Esary said in the easement document, they could refer to the moving river, refer to the development plan, and refer to the fact the plan is in the engineering department. ".,,~-_.~,_.------~--~.~,_.._~..... 1'1" Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission November 8, 1983 Ms. Fallin amended her motion that #2 of the engineering memo rather than have a current survey, the architect will measure the distance from the southeast corner of the improvements to the edge of the river and redraw the river; seconded by White, Hunt suggested that any further development of this property will require replatting. All in favor, motion carried. Pardee asked the planning office to develop a resolution to Council to develop a procedure for minor errors on plats without payment of the fees. The Commission suggested Alan Richman work with the attorney's office and come back with a report. Enloe Stream Margin Review Colette Penne, planning office, said this is an addition located on a bluff 20 to 30 feet above the river. A site inspection was conducted by the staff to verify there would be no adverse impacts on the river; the staff concluded there would be no adverse impact. The engineering department requested language added to the plan, "The construction procedure to be used will in no way impact the stream. There will be no change in the channel or its capacity, there will be no construction activity which will increase stream sedimentation and suspension load". Tom Wells told the Commission this is at the dead end of Riverside drive over the river and adjoins the Aspen Club. Wells showed the Commission where the original owner built the house. The property was subsequently subdivided and where Enloe house is. Harvey said he would like a development plan to sit in the records to make sure this is built the way it is presented. Hunt moved to approve the Enloe stream marging review subject to the language as outlined by Ms. Penne above with the additional condition that adequate draings,; be submitted to the engineering department for the record; seconded by Ms. Tygre. All in favor, motion carried. 1983 L-3 Lodge GMP Competition Alan Richman, planning office, told P & Z there are two applicants in this competition. One of the Hotel Lenado for four units; the the Applejack/The Aspen for three units. The Aspen has a problem with FAR and needs a variance from the Board of Adjusment. Richman said the applicant gave engineering a plan for reconstruction of the parking lot to allow a hot tub to be built and to make the parking more efficient. Engineering did not like the parking plan because of the curb cut on Second street, and had the applicant redraw it. The redrawn plan showed 17 parking spaces. This plan was not approved as part of this application. Richman said the parking plan for the GMP application shows only 16 spaces. The L-3 zone requirement shows a one space per bedroom parking requirement. The Commission, at the time forming the L-3 zone, recognized L-3 lodges would be deficient in parking and would not bring the lodges up to conformity. However, if a lodge were to expand, they would provide one new parking space for each new bedroom. Richman said if that is the case, the 17 parking spaces approved for The Aspen should have 3 parking spaces added. Richman asked the Board if their intent was to require additional parking for new bedrooms created Richman said if that was not the intent of P & Z to require new parking, as the applicant contends, but was to use existing parking for the creation of new rooms, then the Aspen has no problems. Richman said he believed the P & z's intent was to get parking for new rooms. Richman told P & Z 17 parking spaces was shown on the approved plan for the engineering department for the reconstruction of the lodge. Richman said there were never 21 laid out parking spaces. If P & Z wishes to go forward with this application, they can amend the application to provide 3 additional spaces, off-site, on-site or in some other configuration. Harvey said the applicant's recourse is to get a variance from the Board of Adjustment or to - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fORM,n C.F.HOECKELQ.B.II:L,CJ. Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission -3- November 8, 1983 provide the additional parking spaces. Gideon Kaufman, representing the appli- cant, told P & Z they have received HPC approval as well as Board of Adjustment. After the Board of Adjustment meeting last night, he was informed of a problem which has just come up on parking, and they have not had a lot of time to solve this problem. Kaufman pointed out the Applejack (Aspen) has more pakring than any lodge in the L-3 zone. This lodge used to be zoned 0, office, and there was no parking requirement in the office zone. Harvey said the standards for parking are for the new rooms. Harvey said the P & Z does not look at the parking that has been provided, but only looks at the parking required for the new units. The P & Z has to look at how the applicant is providing for the impact of the new units. Pardee asked why there was no pre-conference to go over these problems. Kaufman pointed out the L-3 was not adopted unit August. The applicant was then in the process of renovation. Kaufman said the planning office did not discover this parking problem until yesterday, and they should be given an opportunity to remedy the situation. Harvey said the applicant can provide parking off-site, on-site or get a variance, and the option the applicant choses will influence the scoring of the P & z. Kaufman said he feels this project will meet the threshold even with a low scoring on parking. Sunny Vann, planning director, told P & Z an applicant with a non-conforming structure a person cannot increase the degree of non-conformity. When a person competes in GMP, they do not have to provide parking requirement at 1 to 1 but have to provide parking for the increase. Vann said the planning office has missed something, and the parking requirement should have been noticed when this came in for reconstruction and condominiumization. Vann said the Code states an application cannot be scored that does not meet certain requirements of the zone. Technically, this application should have been rejected the day it came to the planning office. Vann said was not picked up until yesterday, and in all fairness to the applicant, it can be scored at this meeting provided a reasonable solution is provided. Harvey said he does not want to reject this application, but is not comfortable scoring an application when they plan to get a variance from one of the stipu- lations. Richman said the applicant has to provide 20 parking spaces. Harvey asked for comments from the public. There were none. Ms. Penne said in scoring these projects, multipliers are included and they give different weight to different criteria. The Aspen is requesting 3 units and Hotel Lenado is requesting 4 units. The quota available in L-3 is 10 units. The other reviews for these applications are special review to increase the FAR to 1:1 for the Aspen, and final approval by HPC. The Hotel Lenado will have to receive a GMP exemption for the employee unit and eexemption from the parking requirement for that unit. Ms. Penne noted the staff has scored the applications, and both projects have met the thresholds. If P & Z scores similarly, the recommendation would be for approval, with limitations on the Aspen. Ms. Penne said the Aspen is located on 16,507 square feet with a 1:1 FAR with 35 lodge units and one employee unit for a total of 15,425 square feet. This application is for three additional units, free-standing addition elevated one level with parking underneath. The existing employee unit will be expanded 100 square feet. Ms. Penne told P & Z an outdoor swimming pool will replace the indoor pool, a hot tub is being added. Fencing will be provided around the parking lot with an entrance canopy to the main lodge. Ms. Penne told P & Z a 4 inch water main is located in Main street and will service the project. The sewer district said the three new units can be served with no problem. The applicant has indicated a drywell being added to handle roof drainage. The planning offices says this will maintain the exising --__..._.~__M.'.......___._;OO',_.~""""...._._. """''''_F_'~' ~. ,;, ,. ._L .__.._. Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission November 8, 1983 Ms. Penne said there is will be additional fire hydrant placed at the southeast corner, which does upgrade the existing situation. This lodge, located at the corner of Main and Second, has 35 units existing for years, and the three new units will not require road upgrading. Ms. Penne said in the architectural design categories, she gave the Aspen a score of 1 as the design solution of placing the new units on a stilt structure in the middle of the parking lot does not fit with any of the Main street build out. Ms. Penne said allowing this kind of construction may set an undesirable precedent. Ms. Penne said the entrance canopy and fencing of the parking lot are privacy and safety improvements; however, a two-story addition will add more bulk to the site. In energy conservation, Ms. Penne gave the project a 3; solar collectors are proposed~ the concrete mass will be insulated and radiant hot water heating will be incorporated. P & Z requested the profile be made part of the record. The P & Z asked about employee housing. Kaufman said the unit is presently 290 square feet, and they will add 100 square feet. The Code require 70 square feet per employee. Kaufman reminded P & Z that parking is only one feature of the scoring on this project. Kaufman stated the Aspen still has more parking than any other lodge in the L-3 zone. Kaufman disagreed with the scoring on water and quoted for 2 points, "project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area". Kaufman said the applicant is replacing all toilets in all 35 units with water saving toilets, and less water will be used. Kaufman said the project deserves a score of 2 on storm drainage; they are installing a drywell which will accommodate some overflow of water from the alley. They are taking care of the situation on their site as well as capability off-site. Kaufman said on roads, the applicant should also get a score of 2 because they will be paving the alley on the back of the project, which helps safety and improves the situation in the area. Kaufman said as far as architectural design, the new addition is matching exactly with the renovated building. It will be compatible, the size is smaller and the building materials are identical. Kaufman showed the Board the architectural drawings and perspective. Hunt said he is concerned about the tree in the driveway and the hazards from that tree. Kaufman said the intention of the L-3 zone is to encourage people to upgrade. Kaufman said he feels the Applejack is an accomplishment to that; the applicants are doing a major upgrade. Harvey questioned the net energy conservation gain when inside to outside. Russ Pielstick, architect, told P & for ventilation from having the pool inside is enormous. to the Commissioners how the system will work. moving the pool from Z the energy requirement Pielstick explained Hotel Lenado. Ms. Penne told P & Z this is a 9,000 square foot structure on a 9,000 square foot lot. The Edelweiss lodge was demolished on this site and the Hotel Lenado has been under construction. These four lodge units will complete the southeast corner of the hotel. Hotel Lenado has 13 lodge units. The P & Z granted an FAR increas in August for this area; the applicants committed this area would not be occupied unless they successfully competed in GMP. Ms. Penne said there will be an employee unit in the lower level. Four additional off-street parking places are provided. Limosine service is planned. Common areas include an atrium, library opening to Bass park, break- fast room/piano bar, covered porch, roof deck and hot tub, a recreation/confer- ence area, which will also be a day care room, and a screening room. Hunt asked about the status of the FAR variance requests. Ms. Penne said the Board of Adjustment has tabled this request at the applicant's asking. They turned down the canopy variance, covering the entrance. The applicant had asked for this because of the height of the building and the icicles hanging off the roof. The question of the covered trash area and service entrance is still open. The FAR question has been resolved, except for the trash area and service entrance. Daniel Delano, Hotel Lenado, said he does not agree that the visual impact on Paepcke park will be bad. Delano presented two photographs contesting this statement. "- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM'.' C.F.HOECKElQ.8./loL.CJ, Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission -5- November 8, 1983 Hunt said the building is large; the architecture nicely breaks up the building. Delano said he feels the hotel also deserves a better score in site design; they have 35 per cent open space. Delano said, although the dining facility is small, they feel it is of exceptional quality. Ms. Penne said the staff gave this a site in site design because of its size; it is large. Ms. Penne said there is a large coverage of the lot. Delano told P & Z they will be going back to the Board of Adjustment about the service area. Delano said he feels that part of the service area is mechanical area, with electric and gas meter, and part of the shed should not be considered as part of the FAR. The building department feels this is not mechanical and will count as part of the FAR. Delano said the trash area roof was part of a model that has been presented twice to the P & Z, and Delano said the appli- cants felt that was approved. Harvey said he feels covering this area is a good idea, but the Board of Adjust- ment has to make decisions on its own criteria. Harvey said he would like to send the feelings of P & Z. Gary Esary pointed out the solution to the ice falling should have been taken care of in the original design. Ms. Fallin asked why fire protection was only given a score of 1. Ms. Penne said the sprinkler system will only serve this hotel itself, not any neighboring properties. Delano argued this reduces the likelihood of fire spreading to adjacent properue Harvey asked if P & Z wants to convey to the Board of Adjustment that covering the trash area is not a violation of FAR. Pardee suggested the P & Z say this does not effect FAR. The P & Z as a straw vote, indicated to the Board of Adjustment their consensus is that covering the trash area and servic entrance are not a violation of the FAR. Harvey closed the public hearing. P & Z scored the two L-3 applications. Ms. Penne said the Hotel Lenado met all the 30 per cent and has a total of 84.85 met the over 60 required, got 2.42 bonus points for a total of 87.27 points. The Aspen made all the 30 per cent thresholds for a score of 65.19. Ms. Penne said the Hotel Lenado has requested that the exemption for employee housing and parking for that unit be considered tonight. Ms. Penne said she has no problems with this. Hunt moved to recommend to City Council allocated of the 7 units out of the L-3 10 units, 4 for the Hotel Lenado and 3 for the Aspen with the 3 remaining units to be carried over for next year's competition; further to recommend exemption for the Hotel Lenado's employee housing unit with the deed restriction and exemption for parking for this unit; seconded by Ms. Fallin. Hunt amended his motion that the Aspen must add an additional three parking spaces on-site or off-site or obtain a variance from the Board of Adjustment. If one of these three things is not done, the application will be rejected; and that the engineering department look at the tree in the driveway; seconded by Ms. Fallin. All in favor, motion carried. Pardee moved to adjourn at 7:40 p.m.; seconded by Hunt. All in favor, motion carried.