Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20070403 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 3, 2007 COMMENTS ............................................................................................................ 2 SMUGGLER RACQUET CLUB CONCEPTUAL PUD ........................................ 2 1001 UTE A VENUE 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW, RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS VARIANCE and PUD AMENDMENT .......................................... 4 1 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 3, 2007 Ruth Kruger opened the regular Planning and Zoning in the Sister Cities at 4:40 with LJ Erspamer, Brian Speck, John Rowland, and David Guthrie present. Dylan Johns and Steve Skadron were excused. Jim True, Special Counsel and staff in attendance were: Joyce Allgaier, Jessica Garrow, Community Development and Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMENTS Brian Speck said that the Council meeting last night was disturbing because of Torre's comments about the meeting room full of just people from the trade and not representative of the community. Speck took exception to that remark and said that everyone was in some trade. Joyce Allgaier provided the updated schedule for the Code Amendments to Council. Ruth Kruger stated that the P&Z Commissioners would meet as often as necessary to get things into a position where the Council can act in the time frame so that the business can get done. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (3/6/7): SMUGGLER RACQUET CLUB CONCEPTUAL PUD Ruth Kruger opened the continued public hearing for the Smuggler Racquet Club. Jessica Garrow stated there were a few changes form the March 6th meeting and an update from HPC regarding the cabin location. Garrow said the site plan changed on the lot closest to Park Circle where the affordable housing will be developed and the number of units has been decreased and the number of parking spaces was increased. There were 44 spaces proposed spaces on site with spaces #31 - 44 as double stall spaces (stacked parking) and the land use code counts those spaces as I instead of2. The Applicant proposed assigning parking spaces to individual units. This would be done in Special Review during the final review. Kim Weil, architect, said that because I space was handicap there were actually 43 spaces on site counting the double loaded spaces as one each. Garrow said that HPC was willing to look at the cabin with a more significant site plan and landscaping plan that framed the cabin, which would help reduce the prominence of the cabin. Garrow stated that there was a change to the resolution in Section 2 the 3rd line down that a required detailed curb and gutter plan but staff did not feel that this lot was adjacent to Park Circle and this lot would be addressed in the Development Review Committee. 2 ...."~.,.,.>,.~_'''__...".,....''''"._'''..... "___-o-~~.__.___"_ ..._ ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 3, 2007 John Sarpa, applicant, said there Racquet Club members present. Sarpa said the building evolved from the first. Kim Weil, architect, utilized a site plan and renderings of the club to show where the affordable housing would be set back and where the Racquet Club was located. Weil said this tennis club was a non- profit and their big events every year were pot lucks; the Racquet Club Members were cost conscious about the redevelopment ofthe club. Weil said the club architecture kept with the mining heritage. Weil provided a 3-dimensional drawing showing the club, tennis courts and housing unit; the architecture used rusted metal. LJ Erspamer asked the height on the club building. Weil replied 28 feet and 33 to the ridge; they were going down 10 to 12 feet. John Rowland asked if the design intent was zero eaves. Weil responded yes, minimal. David Guthrie asked if the glazing was glass. Weil answered it would be some type of product to cut down on the glare. No public comments on the Racquet Club portion. John Sarpa stated they dropped affordable housing units to accommodate more parking spaces. Kruger asked how many units were in the new plan. Weil replied 48 bedrooms including the cabin. Sarpa said that they would go to APCHA with the new plan. Weil said they added inflection to building A, which resulted in the unit count going down; there was a story dropped from the middle of the building. Garrow stated that staff requested enlarging the windows in the bedrooms once they get to final to provide more light into the bedrooms. Sarpa said that the windows were kept high because they were bedrooms. Erspamer asked ifthere would be guest parking. Weil said there would be no more than 2 spaces assigned per unit so there would be parking available. Guthrie asked about the landscaping for the parking. Weil said this was conceptual and they have not modified the landscaping yet but they will. John Rowland asked if there was historical significance to the fence that goes around the cabin. Kruger said that when they were on site it was pointed out that 3 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 3, 2007 satisfy the review criteria for the 8040 Greenline; staff recommends denial of the 8040 because if the design. Garrow said the Residential Design Standards Variances requested a variance from the secondary mass, which staff recommended against because it would help the building if the mass was minimized and broken up a little more. Garrow said there were 2 PUD Amendments that staff supports. The first would move 387 feet from Lot 2 to Lot I, which would change the FAR allowed on each lot; this internal change would not effect the massing of the building. The second amendment would allow building on the lot line between lots 1 and 2, which would accommodate the garage that was proposed underground and would minimize the mass and staff supported the zero lot line setback. Glenn Horn, planner for applicant, introduced Latham Stem, owner, who intended to live in one ofthe houses and Jack Miller the architect; Greg Mosley and Ben the landscape architects and the former owner, Alan Chosen, who was a neighbor. Horn provided the history of the property and photographs of the site from Smuggler Mountain during the winter and summer. Horn said the only part of the lots that would be developed would be below the old railroad right-of-way. Horn said that they were trying to emulate the Aspen Chance Subdivision. Horn said there would be open space located in the county the 2 residential units and an affordable housing units. Horn questioned whether the design standards should apply on this property. Horn provided a visual interpretation of what the 2 houses would look like and said that they would fit into this neighborhood. Horn said that there was discussion at Council during the PUD review about the massing; the houses would sit down and the garage was completely underground and from the street this would read as a one story building. The massing was broken up to the East. Horn used a map to show adjacent properties with the visible mass above grade. Horn said the lots were III feet wide and 91 feet on lot 2 reducing the heights to the ridge at 22 feet and below; the allowable was 27 feet and the original proposal was 30 feet. The materials were mixed shown on an illustrative. Horn said the issue was secondary mass and read the standard as applicable in the infill area; this was considered an infill site even though there was no alley. Horn noted the intent of the building form standard doesn't really apply that much to this site because the standards apply to preserving neighborh()od scale; ensuring that Aspen Streets are public places conducive to walking; fostering neighborhood 5 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 3, 2007 character by establishing a relationship between front facades of buildings and streets they face; orient buildings parallel to the street; maintain consistency and front setback patterns; avoiding building materials with no relevance to Aspen history; construct parking to the rear or side of residences; encourage accessory structures and dwellings to be located along alleys inspired by the tradition of outbuildings in the Aspen area. Horn said that on Ute Avenue the building scale varied with little compliance with the secondary mass standard; front building facades were not consistently orientated to Ute A venue because the street was curvilinear with mixed uses of single family, duplexes and tennis courts. Horn provided photos of the neighborhood showing the different uses. Horn felt the secondary mass was not appropriate for this project. Garrow provided the changes to the application beginning with the first page of the Resolution with the WHEREAS being reflected as the property located on Ute Mesa, which was an address change that never occurred. A construction management plan approved by the city engineer was required for the building permit application process; the plan shall include how potentially hazardous materials will be minimized on site. Part E changes the testing procedures regarding the grading and drainage plan deleted is the LEACHE test and adding the RECRA for 8 heavy metals; the applicant and stafffelt that this is more accurate for this site and address what parts ofthe site are contaminated and which parts are not. Section 4 changes the acronym FAR to floor area ratio to make it clearer. Section 9 deleted the second paragraph. Section lOA is added "lab unidentified non-toxic soils" do not fall under the handling plan topic and were not subject to the requirements; Section A provides a detailed test to determine what soils are and aren't contaminated. Section G should have been put into the Resolution based on the ordinance language; a standard language for any mine waste (a clarification). David Guthrie asked about the "lab identified". Garrow said that would be clarified. Garrow said the final change was to Section II, which clarifies that they 4 foot berm or wall helps protect against rock fall and avalanche dangers. Guthrie asked who determined the avalanche protection. Horn replied there was a straight wall approved by the geotechnical engineers. Kruger asked who would inspect and control the toxic soils. Garrow replied the Environmental Health Department and another agency, which would be addressed in the construction management plan. Erspamer asked if this was part of the mine site. Horn replied that it was not part of that mine site but has to comply with state and federal law; they hired Tom 6 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 3, 2007 Dunlop to do specific testing in a grid. Horn said the key was the construction management plan for monitoring. Erspamer asked for the definition of massing. Garrow replied that any building was a mass; staff felt this site would be a better diffused building. Horn said that they felt they addressed the mass with the variation of materials and reduction in the width and height of the buildings. Guthrie asked why the variance criteria were not met. Garrow replied that in Exhibit A provides the criteria and secondary mass was not hard to obtain. Guthrie asked how close they were to meeting secondary mass. Allgaier said that it was P&Z's role to evaluate the context; secondary mass was a building broken up. Public Comments: I. Donnie Lee, Gant General Manager, stated support for this project; he said that the homes in Ute Place were very similar to these buildings. 2. Jennifer Hall, attorney for Richard and Susan Wells owners of970 Powder Lane, share a property line with this project. Hall said that their concerns were for their three children and two dogs with the lead concentrations on this site. Hall said that they wanted to know exactly how the soils would be handled during the construction and how it would be stabilized and left permanently after it. Hall said that construction management plan would address trucks coming on and off the . site and the fugitive dust plan to make sure the lead contaminated soils do not become air borne. 3. Alan Chosen, 971 Ute, stated that he previously owned 1001 Ute, which he offered to Rich prior to Latham buying the property. Chosen said that he cared about the neighborhood. 4. Cathy Crum, neighbor to the property, stated that they had a tiny house and times have changed since they bought their house. Crum said the neighborhood has been very kind and protective and she supported this project. 5. Connie Holcomb stated that she lived at Ute Place and some of the owners wanted to voice concern regarding the retaining walls; that they be visually pleasing. Kruger asked if the retaining walls were visible. Horn said that they were committed to screening the 4 foot wall with conifers so even in the winter the wall would be screened and the tennis courts were in front of the wall. 7 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 3, 2007 Erspamer said that he would go with staff recommendations on the secondary mass and would like to see aesthetically pleasing walls. Guthrie wanted the construction management plan be more specific with fencing, an erosion plan, monitoring, remediation plan, soils disposal and other categories. Guthrie said that he could support the variance. Rowland said that he struggled with the secondary mass but the design guidelines were a problem. Rowland could support the variance because of the neighboring structures. Speck agreed with John. Kruger said she found the massing a bit overpowering but the site constraints were a concern; the context of the neighborhood supported that type of massing. Latham Stem said that he was a community person and the construction management plan would do anything possible to contain the material on the property; the massing was under the neighborhood massing; none of the houses in the neighborhood contained secondary mass. Kruger stated that she would like to see some variation in the roof line for less of a vistIal impact. Guthrie said that it was extraordinary to have so many neighbors in support of the proj ect. MOTION: John Rowland moved to approve Resolution #9, series 2007, approving variances to the residential design standards for secondary mass; approving an 8040 Greenline review and a PUD Other Amendment for the Ute Mesa PUD located 1001 Ute Avenue; seconded by David Guthrie. Roll call vote: Speck, yes; Erspamer, no; Guthrie, yes; Rowland, yes; Kruger, yes. APPROVED 4-1. Adjourned. kie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 8