HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20090421Reeular Meeting Aspen Plannine and Zonine Apri121, 2009
Comments ............................................................................2
Minutes ...............................................................................2
Conflict of Interest ..................................................................3
102 Wood Duck Lane, Hallam Lake Bluff Review .....................................3
222 E Hallam, Map Amendment ...................................................4
Code Amendment, HPC Purview in the Right of Way ..........................7
Code Amendment, HPC Commercial Design Call Up ..........................8
Re¢ular Meeting Asnen Plannine and Zonine Aoril 21 2009
LJ Erspamer opened the regular P&Z Meeting in the Sister Cities Meeting Room at
4:30pm. Commissioners Cliff Weiss, Bert Myrin, Stan Gibbs, LJ Erspamer and
Mike Wampler were present. Excused were Jim DeFrancia and Brian Speck. Staff
in attendance were Jim True, Special Counsel; Errin Evans, Jessica Garrow, Sara
Adams, Amy Guthrie, Chris Bendon, Community Development; Jackie Lothian,
Deputy City Clerk.
COMMENTS
LJ asked how soon they have to do a site visit. Jim True responded as soon as it is
properly noticed. Sara Adams and Jessica Garrow replied that it was 24 hours in
the vestibule of City Hall. Erspamer asked how P&Z can call a site visit. True
responded that after reviewing the packet and you feel that a site visit is mandatory
then you can set the site visit as quickly as possible and ask staff. The commission
agreed to site visits. True said that at site visits there really shouldn't be any
comments unless it is being recorded other than a description of the property itself.
Jim Smith, public, said that plans that are brought forward are conceptual with
detailed explanation of the materials being used on a building. Jim Smith said that
had he known about the vents on the top of Dancing Bear he would have had
another opinion and from the 625 East Main.
Lindsey Smith, public, said that when the different buildings were presented she
suggested "buyer beware" and the applicants know the cracks and fall right
through them. Lindsey Smith said that 2 structures on the roof of Stage III that
were 9 feet tall and 14 feet wide that were not on the application and there was a
stairwell enclosure. LJ Erspamer said that P&Z follows procedure from criteria.
Lindsey Smith said that was the purpose of her bringing this up.
Jessica Garrow said that Jim and Lindsey Smith brought this up to Council and
Council directed staff to have a work session on this. Garrow said that the
Planning and Building Departments have been working with the applicant for the
Stage III project regarding the stairwell enclosures and any misrepresentations that
might have happened in that approval process as well as height issues. Garrow
said they were hopefully having a work session in May to address the issue of do
we always see what we are actually going to get.
MOTION: Bert Myrin moved to approve the minutes from 01/06/09; 01/20/09
and 02/17/09 with the changes from LJErspamer to add "comments " to page S of
the 01/06/09 minutes. Seconded by Stan Gibbs; all in favor, Approved.
2
Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning April 21, 2009
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Bert Myrin stated that he had a conflict of interest on 222 E Hallam; he received
public notice.
PUBLIC HEARING:
102 WOOD DUCK LANE - HALLAM LAKE BLUFF REVIEW
LJ Erspamer opened the public hearing and legal notice was provided. Drew
Alexander stated that this was an ESA review for Hallam Lake Bluff, which has 3
major criteria. 1. No development aside from native vegetation be allowed on the
top of slope; 2. Development within 15 feet of top of slope shall be at grade and 3.
The 45 degree delineation line where no development should occur. The entire
patio including a hot tub and fireplace is in the Hallam Lake review; a113 of the
review criteria have been met. Alexander said the patio was setback 18.42 feet
from the top of slope. There was no development below the top of slope and no
height variation in the 45 degree delineation. Staff recommended approval with
conditions of limiting construction, a drainage report approved by City
Engineering Department including a method for draining the hot tub, an amended
landscaping plan approved by City Parks Department and a lighting plan was
submitted.
Cliff Weiss asked what was happening with retaining walls; were the walls being
expanded. Mike Wampler asked if there was a patio there right now. Mitch Haas
replied there was nothing there right now, everything has been torn out. Wampler
asked if there were regulations for draining a hot tub. Garrow replied that it was an
engineering consideration so it will be dealt with as part of the drainage report and
it was a condition of approval. Bert Myrin said that he was a little more concerned
about the lighting. Garrow responded the City has a very detailed lighting code
and anytime any building permit comes in it includes a lighting plan and it has to
meet that code section and if it does not then the building permit is not approved.
Myrin asked if the City Engineering Department requested limited activity on the
development. Alexander answered it was for site improvements to maintain the
top of slope. Myrin asked what limitations were on patio furniture. Garrow
replied there were no limitations on patio furniture only if they were building a
structure on the deck area.
Mitch Haas, consultant for the applicant, stated the house that was torn down was
within 30 foot setback from the top of slope; they had to get a Hallam Lake Bluff
approval to tear it down because the demolition was considered development under
the code. Haas said the new house is well below that 30 foot setback requirement.
Haas said the patio was more than landscaping but was at grade on the west side of
Reeular Meetine Aspen Plannine and Zonine April 21 2009
the house and as you move east the grade goes higher and then lower in the center.
Haas said the patio is flat without steps but when you get to the one corner you are
above grade so there are retaining walls running perpendicular to the Hallam Lake
Bluff top of slope; the top of the retaining wall was 8 feet plus set 17 feet back
from the top of slope is about half of the progressive height limit. Haas said the
applicant was very sensitive to the environment and has green companies that
produce vitamins. Haas said that the hot tub is sunken and it will meet the city
engineer requirements for drainage or there will not be a hot tub. Haas said there
were not really lighting plans but they will comply with the lighting codes.
Cliff Weiss asked why this was beyond landscaping. Mitch Haas replied because
of the retaining walls due to the grade of 8 foot. Weiss said he noticed a dry well
just off where the patio is to be built and it is not on the plans. Haas responded the
dry well was already there and the replacement has already been approved by the
planning office and is considered a utility. Garrow said at building permit the floor
area would be calculated.
Bert Myrin asked if the light emitted from the fire pit was above the grade. Haas
replied the source of the fire pit was below grade and behind the house. Myrin said
that his concern was from Hallam Lake. Haas said that it was not visible from
Hallam Lake either.
No public comments.
MOTION: Cliff Weiss moved to approve Resolution #006A-09 for 102 Wood
Duck Lane, Hallam Lake Bluff review with the condition as part of the building
permit review the zoning officer will review adjusted floor area calculations to
insure they are consistent with allowable floor area; seconded by Mike Wampler.
Roll call vote: Gibbs, yes; Myrin, yes; Wampler, yes; Weiss, yes; Erspamer, yes.
APPROVED 5-0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
222 E HALLAM. MAP AMENDMENT and ASSOCIATED LAND USE
REVIEWS
LJ Erspamer opened the public hearing. Bert Myrin recused himself. Jessica
Garrow stated the owner was Joseph Amato represented by Patrick Rawley of Stan
Clauson and Associates. Garrow said the applicant is requesting 3 land use
approvals and all require a recommendation from the Planning & Zoning
Commission to City Council for the final review authority. Garrow stated the, first
is removal of the SPA Designation (Specially Planned Area); the second is a
4
Regular Meetin¢ Aspen Planning and Zonin¢ April 21, 2009
rezoning from SCI (Service Commercial Industrial) to R-6 and a creation of a PUD
for the property. Garrow said the PUD was a consolidated process, which was a
conceptual and final process.
Garrow said the property was an upside down shaped L, shown in Exhibit E, the
map; there was split zoning on the parcel. The zoning was SCI with a SPA overlay
and the other part was R-6 and a portion of the Post Office Trail runs through the
property and currently no easement for the trail; the trail connects the Post Office
and Clarks Market area with the Red Brick. Garrow said the lot was 16,580 square
feet with an existing single family residence of 3,233square feet. At the base of the
L there were steep slopes so with the slope reduction the lot was 12,435 square
feet. Garrow said the split zoning on the parcel was believed to be a result of the
original town site boundary which crosses the property at approximately the same
place where that split zoning is located. Staff is recommending approval of this
application. In order to remove the SPA it must be found that this parcel is
residential in nature both in terms of the existing residence and does not look
commercial. The neighborhood context is residential and the access to the
property is residential.
Garrow said the rezoning was to eliminate the split zoning and have the entire
parcel zoned R-6. R-6 zoning is consistent with the adjacent parcels and
neighborhood. Staff recommends approval of the rezoning because it creates a
more consistent development pattern in the area.
Garrow said the PUD was requested to establish dimensional requirements for the
property and create an easement for that Post Office Trail. To create a PUD there
must be a public benefit to the project and staff believes that the easement and
eliminating the ability to include commercial uses on this property is a benefit.
Garrow said without a PUD the rezoning would create anon-conforming building
in terms of the side yard setbacks. Staff proposed the combined side yard setback
requirement be 15 feet with a minimum of 5 feet on each side. The rear yard
setback based off of the top of slope. The applicant suggested the top of slope be
the rear yard setback but the Parks Department suggested a 5 foot setback off of
that top of slope line to insure the slope and vegetation are protected.
Garrow said that there was no mention of an alley in the title work or an alley
vacation. Garrow said staff will ask City Council for a vacation of any alley that
may or may not exist on the property.
Reeular Meetine Asoen Plannine and Zoning Aari121 2009
Erspamer asked if there were any TDRs planned for this property. Garrow replied
there was no TDR applied for and is not included in the PUD.
Patrick Rawley, represents the applicant, stated they have come in for rezoning and
PUD. Rawley said the current portion of the property that was R-6 was about 5400
square feet and the rear portion was about 7,000 square feet zoned SCI with the
steep slopes and the Post Office Trail. The existing house was about 3200 square
feet which will not be altered in any way; the driveway access off of Hallam will
remain the same. Rawley said the existing and proposed side yard setbacks are 5
feet on the western boundary and 10 feet on the eastern boundary consistent with
neighboring properties; the front yard setback would remain the same as 10 foot.
Rawley said they proposed 2 easements; for the Post Office Trail, a 10 foot
easement on either side of the trail and the second would be a conservation
easement to the top of the slope (on the slope). There would be an addition of 633
square feet that would result in the rezoning from SCI to R-6.
LJ Erspamer asked the City's position on the rear setback. Jessica Garrow replied
the conservation easement would be on the slope so R-6 zone district requires a 10
foot setback for principal structures. Mike Wampler asked how far back or close
to the edge could this house be. Garrow said the applicant was proposing at the top
of slope the 82 foot contour be the rear setback. Garrow said that staff proposed 5
feet off of that slope so there would be an additional protection of that slope.
Erspamer asked if a free standing ADU could be placed on the property. Garrow
replied yes.
Cliff Weiss asked if a deck or patio could be built into the setback. Jessica Garrow
replied that 18 inches of overhangs were allowed and not more than 3 inches above
or below grade.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Ryan Pardu said that he representing Vickie and Dan Walters who own 216 E
Hallam to the west of the property in question. Pardu said that if any additional
structures are built on the 222 E Hallam property the Walters would like a 10 foot
setback from their property.
Stan Gibbs asked if there was development in the back of the 216 E Hallam house.
Ryan Pardu replied that he was not sure. Stan Clauson said the 216 E Hallam was
the former Mona Frost property and it consisted of a front house, a Victorian
resource, and a rear barn structure that was redeveloped as a carriage house.
Clauson said the front house had new construction next to it. Garrow said there
6
Re¢ular Meetine Aspen Plannine and Zonin¢ Apri121, 2009
was a 5 foot setback on the 222 E Hallam property. Garrow said they were trying
to make this PUD as consistent with the R-6 Zone District. Staff doesn't support
any specific setbacks other than combined 15 with a minimum of 5 on each side
for future development or addition.
Weiss said that it was not spelled out that the property was getting an additional
633 square feet and the map was not current. Weiss stated that he did not want to
see a structure within 5 foot of that setback; he wanted a 15 foot setback.
Mike Wampler voiced concern over the size of the house in the PUD; they
currently have 3,233 square feet and want an increase to 3,866 square feet.
Wampler said he did not want to see the house expanded.
Weiss asked the distance from the current existing house to the top of slope.
Rawley replied the rear of the garage was 60 feet from the top of slope and the rear
setback would be 31 feet from the property line. Clauson said there was no intent
to deceive and the application clearly states that the gain of the applicant is 633
square feet of floor area. Clauson said the trail ran along almost the entire back
portion of the property and the Parks Department likes to have a proper easement
for any trails with an additional amount of width for maintenance work. Clauson
said that a 5 foot setback from the top of slope would be acceptable.
Gibbs said that if the setback were 10 feet from top of slope he would be willing to
allow the side yard setbacks as proposed.
MOTION: Cliff Weiss moved to approve Resolution 007-09approving the PUD,
rezoning and removing the SPA for 222 E Hallam with the following changes in
conditions from 10 feet from the top of slope or 42 feet from the rear property line;
seconded by Mike Wampler. Roll call: Gibbs, yes; Wampler, no; Weiss, yes;
Erspamer, yes; APPROVED 3-1.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CODE AMENDMENT -HISTORIC DISTRICTS - HPC PURVIEW IN THE
RIGHT OF WAY
LJ Erspamer opened the public hearing. Sara Adams provided Special Counsel
with the approval of public notice. Adams explained there were 2 historic districts
in town: the Main Street and Commercial Core that were established in the mid
1970's. Adams looked into the review process for decisions in the right of way in
these historic districts and realized that it was not that clear.
Re¢ular Meetin¢ Asaen Planning and Zonine Anril 21 2009
Adams described a historic district was a pattern of development, a collection of
buildings, something that is continuous so when you visit this place you get a sense
of what it was like back in that era; you are looking for a cohesive whole for the
most part. Adams said the first 2 sections of the proposed code amendment clarify
the language and do not expand the boundaries but include the spaces between the
blocks and lots that were listed in the 1970s. HPC has about 4 levels of review for
landmarks or development in a historic district: exempt development that don't
have an impact on the historic character of the district; certificate of no negative
effect, which is a staff approval that will change the appearance of something but
not negatively; minor development review, which is a one step review; the major
development, which is a conceptual and final review. Adams asked the other city
departments (Parks, Engineering, Parking, Streets, Water, Utilities) affected by
these code amendments for a check list of work performed in these right of ways to
make the review process fair. HPC approved this code language change
unanimously (6-0) and Planning & Zoning is asked to make a recommendation to
City Council. Adams said all the standards of review for the code amendment are
met especially the AACP that says "we must continue building on what we have
by authentically preserving historic structures and creating thoughtful new
buildings that encourage and shape that feeling of historical continuity" and
consistent with our broader community goals" and to "work to improve HPC
review process."
MOTION: Cliff Weiss moved to extend the meeting by 10 minutes; Stan Gibbs
seconded; all in favor, Approved.
MOTION: Bert Myrin moved to approve Resolution 008-09 to include the back
half of the Jerome (down Bleeker to Monarch and the east side of Mill, curb to
curb); Mike Wampler seconded. Roll call: Weiss, yes; Gibbs, yes; Wampler, yes;
Myrin, yes; Erspamer, yes; all in favor, Approved S-0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CODE AMENDMENT HPC DESIGN CALL-UP
LJ Erspamer opened the public hearing.
MOTION: Cliff Weiss moved to continue the public hearing for the HPC design
call up to June 16, 2009; seconded by Mike Wampler. All in favor, Approved.
Adjourn 7:10 pm.
ct-v
ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
8