Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20090616` Reeular Meetine Aspen Plannin¢ and ZOninE June 16, 2009 Comments 2 Minutes 2 Conflicts of Interest 2 500 Doolittle Dr SPA Amendment 2 Five Trees Subdivision PUD Amendment 2 Code Amendment Design Call up 6 Regular Meetine Asneu Plannine and Zoning June 16.2009 Stan Gibbs opened the regular P&Z Meeting in the Sister Cities Meeting Room at 4:30pm. Commissioners Cliff Weiss, Bert Myrin, Mike Wampler, Stan Gibbs and Dina Bloom were present. Excused were LJ Erspamer, Jim DeFrancia and Brian Speck. Staff in attendance were Errin Evans, Jennifer Phelan, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMENTS Cliff Weiss voiced concern for the Code Amendment Commercial Design call-up. The order of the agenda was changed to 500 Doolittle drive first, Five Trees second and Code Amendment third. There would also be discussion of the overall schedule for P&Z. MINUTES Cliff Weiss asked about the work session mentioned on page 2 of the minutes. Jennifer Phelan responded that there was a work session with Council and the issue was rooftop access. MOTION: Cliff Weiss moved to approve the minutes from 04/21/09. Seconded by Mike Wampler; all in favor, Approved. CONFLICT OF INTEREST None Stated. PUBLIC HEARING: 500 DOOLITTLE DR SPA AMENDMENT Stan Gibbs opened the public hearing. Mitch Haas provided notice and posting. Errin Evans stated before you is the review for a Specially Planned Area (SPA) amendment, Growth Management Quota System Review under essential public facilities and 8040 Greenline Review for a facade remodel of the administration building and an addition of a carport at the City's Water Treatment Plant. Evans said it was the authority of the Planning & Zoning Commission to approve or deny the 8040 Greenline Review and make a recommendation to City Council regarding the SPA amendment and the Growth Management. Staff recommends approval of the application. Mitch Haas said that the request was to extend the roofline for storage of heavy equipment in the winter and redoing the entrance to the administration building so access could be handled more efficiently. Haas said there were no problems with the staff memo or resolution. Haas utilized a drawing to show the eve and 2 Reeular Meetine Asaen Plannine and Zonin¢ June 16, 2009 properly, which was 54 acres. Haas said the office expansion was no longer in this year's budget and that was the reason for coming back to P&Z another time. Stan Gibbs asked if there was 104,000 square feet of approved space for the SPA. Evans replied yes, the SPA was done in the early 1980s and the site was large. MOTION: Cliff Weiss moved to approve Resolution 010-09approving with conditions, the recommendations for Growth Management Review and Specially Planned Area amendment to Council and approving the requests for 8040 Greenline Review at 500 Doolittle Drive on the City of Aspen Water Treatment Plant ;Dina Bloom seconded. Roll call vote: Wampler, yes; Myrin, yes; Bloom, yes; Weiss, yes; Gibbs, yes; Approved 5-0. PUBLIC HEARING: FIVE TREES SUBDIVISION PUD AMENDMENT Stan Gibbs opened the public hearing for Five Trees Subdivision PUD Amendment. Jennifer Phelan explained that Jim Korpela from Beach Resource Management represented the homeowners of the Moore Family PUD also known as Five Trees. Phelan provided proof of notice for posting, mailing and newspaper. Jennifer Phelan said the PUD contained 40 free market lots and 30 affordable housing lots and some open space/park areas and the ski club area. The PUD is regulated by adopted design guidelines and one design guideline says that all development except for driveways and retaining walls associated with driveways are required to be in a building envelope. Phelan stated the building envelope sets the setbacks for a building and contains all of the development within an area on the site. This subdivision was approved in the county and annexed into the city; this subdivision does not have an activity envelope and because of this there were problems with spacing and appropriate landscaping, handling drainage issues on site and connecting and trenching utilities from the road to the property. Phelan said that Community Development has been working with the Parks Department, Engineering Department and with Beach Resource Management to allow an Activity Envelope. The Activity Envelope would be a defined area from the foundation of a building out 20 feet and within that activity envelope it would allow for drainage swales, drywells, geothermal wells, and approved landscaping. The Interim Disturbance Area which is a 10 foot wide trenching allowance from the street to the building envelope for utilities that's required to be re-vegetated with natural landscaping and be approved by both Beach Resource Management on behalf of the homeowners and the Parks Department. During discussions it came Regular Meeting Asaen Planning and Zoning June 16, 2009 up that it might be appropriate to put some landscaping in open space areas of the subdivision and if there were issues of diseased trees outside the building envelope there was some allowance to work with the Parks Department to remove and replant diseased trees. Phelan explained that there were 40 free-market lots zoned R-30 and R-15 zone district constituted 30 affordable housing units. Phelan said the R-30 minimum lot size was 30,000 feet with minimum front yard setback at 25 feet; side yard setback is 10 feet and rear is 15 feet. Phelan said on the eastern by the ski lift easement there was over 20 foot setback from the building. Bert Myrin said that trees go to die behind the Red Brick. Myrin asked how a site constraint worked in the city for the relocation of trees. Phelan replied Parks will come out and determine what trees by caliper and/or species on the property and will determine what trees to be saved and what trees can be removed with a Parks Mitigation fee or that tree that was removed must be replaced. Phelan said that some people would pay the Parks Mitigation fee, replant trees on the HOA open space or replanting on the owners property. Myrin said the resolution doesn't have a priority on the City's point of view. Phelan responded that it would be a case by case basis; people were interested in landscaping for privacy issues to a degree on their property. Cliff Weiss asked where the relocated idea came from. Myrin suggested a priority that the trees stay on the property first and if that doesn't work then the trees would go on the open space and cash mitigation was the last. Cliff Weiss asked if the 30 and 40 houses were already built. Phelan replied that the affordable housing units were built and about 8free-market units were not completely built yet. Mike Wampler asked if the houses that were not yet built would have the same rules as the people who had already built houses. Jennifer Phelan replied yes. Weiss asked if the draining would be optional. Phelan replied that it was not optional drainage had to be maintained on site; drywells can be placed 10 feet from the foundation. Wampler asked what if people don't want to do it, will they be forced to do it. Phelan replied that a drainage plan was necessary. Wampler asked if there were any other options for the people. Stan Gibbs asked where area 9 was located. Phelan replied that it was in the original plans adjacent to Grey Talon Court. 4 Reeular Meeting Aspen Plannine and Zoning June 16, 2009 Weiss said that he only had one lot and didn't know if the property line on a lot 20 feet setback how close was it to the surrounding lots. Phelan replied that someone would not be able to landscape across a property boundary. Jim Korpela, Beach Management Resource Management, pointed out that any landscaping that a homeowner would do, would be subject to the property line boundary. Korpela said there was not an activity envelope in the current PUD and that has hampered efforts to mitigate drainage issues and utility improvements needed to be made; so this was to clean up the language to give the flexibility with the controls in place. Myrin reiterated his prioritizing of the landscaping issues. Phelan suggested if prioritizing landscape on the actual lot; the second preference would be to landscape on open space and cash in lieu would be third. Korpela said it was good to prioritize. Weiss asked if the house on lot 28 was built. Korpela answered that it was under construction. Public Comments: Bruce said that he lived in the subdivision and agreed with the recommendations. MOTION: Bert Myrin moved to approve Resolution 009 series of 2009 for S00 Doolittle Drive Spa Amendment with the priority in paragraph 6 to include tree replacement on the individual lots is preferred, secondly with landscaping on the open space and the third cash payment in lieu for mitigation and #7 to maintain a natural environment; Mike Wampler seconded. All in favor of the amendment and roll call: Weiss, yes; Bloom, yes; Wampler, yes; Myrin, yes; Gibbs, yes; APPROVED 5-0. Korepla said that Parks would oversee everything. Discussion on P&Z Schedule: The commissioners and community development discussed the overall schedule. Jennifer Phelan said that there were a number of cases slated to come before P&Z. The commissioners objected to having more meetings especially 2 meetings back to back in one week; and asked why there were 6 meetings additional with HPC on the Wheeler. Phelan said that it would take 2 meetings to go through what the architects had and it takes only 4 members combined P&Z and HPC for a quorum. Then P&Z will review the Wheeler on Growth Management. Phelan said the Wheeler review was conceptual, commercial design and growth management. 5 Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning June 16.2009 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: CODE AMENDMENT -COMMERCIAL DESIGN CALL UP Stan Gibbs opened the continued public hearing for the code amendment. Jennifer Phelan explained that there was a call up provision that Council has 30 days to call up a decision made by either the Historic Preservation Commission or the Planning & Zoning Commission with regards to conceptual design approval. If Council calls the decision up, the decision can either be reversed, changed or remanded back to the board that made the decision if it was found that due process had not been provided or the board had exceeded its jurisdiction. Phelan noted that the Council could decide on de novo which could mean that they do not like the decision. MOTION: Cliff Weiss moved to continue the public hearing for the proposed Code Amendment related to Design Call Up specifically Land Use Code Sections 26.415.120; 26.412.0408; 26.415.070D3 and 26.415.070D4 to November 3, 2009; Dina Bloom seconded. All in favor, APPROVERS-0. Adjourned at 6:15pm. ~l ackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk