Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20100706City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes July 06 2010 Comments Minutes Conflicts of Interest 15 Harbour Lane Stream Margin Review 2 2 2 2 C ity Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — Ju 06, 20 10 Stan Gibbs called the regular meeting of July 6, 2010 in Sister Cities Meeting Room to order at 4:30pm. Commissioners present were Cliff Weiss, Jim DeFrancia, LJ Erspamer and Stan Gibbs. Jasmine Tygre, Mike Wampler, Brian Speck and Bert Myrin were excused. Staff in attendance: Jim True, Special Counsel; Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Community Development Director; April Barker, Engineering; Brian Flynn, Parks; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. Comments Jim DeFrancia said that he has to leave by 6:20pm. Jennifer Phelan said that there were public hearings for the next couple of meetings and she would put a long range plan in the next meeting packet. Minutes MOTION: Cliff Weiss moved to approve the minutes from June 15, 2010 with one change to page 4; seconded by LJ Erspamer. All in favor, Approved. Conflicts of Interest None stated. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: 15 Harbour Lane — Stream Margin R eview Stan Gibbs opened the public hearing on 15 Harbour Ln — Stream Margin Review and associated reviews. Gibbs asked for the public notice. Jennifer Phelan supplied the public notice. Phelan stated this application was for 15 Harbour Lane; Harbour Lane runs adjacent to Castle Creek and access via Power Plant Road. The owner Dona Stuart is present and is proposing to build a special addition on the property and a new garage, this property is adjacent to this private road Harbour Lane and the other side is backed by Castle Creek. Phelan said the property is zoned R -15A PUD and to build this addition the property Stream Margin Review is needed. Special Review for 2 variances from the Stream Margin Review Standard, a PUD Amendment for setbacks for this property and she is requesting Residential Design Variances. Phelan said there was some work that went on in between the application and tonight's hearing so we've agreed to continue the Residential Design Variances to August P. Phelan said Stream Margin Review requires 15 feet from the top of slope; the City Engineering Department has identified the top of slope for this property on page 3 figure 1; it's basically the 100 year flood plain line so any development has to be 15 feet from that top of slope and you can see in this application the 2 story residential addition and the garage that's being 2 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes July 06 2010 proposed are within that 15 foot setback on the river side. Phelan said the applicant also has some setback constraints on the Harbour Lane right -of -way that is a 25 foot required front yard setback from essentially the right -of -way and it's a 10 foot setback on the side of the property. Phelan said the red hatching on figure 1 is really the only developable area for this site, which is quite constrained. Phelan said that the planning, engineering and parks staff went to the site with the applicant and her architect and have worked on kind of an agreement to the residential addition. Phelan said what they have been working with is how do you accommodate some development and still protect the river. If the applicant were to develop the property as proposed she would need variances from the 15 foot top of slope setback requirement as well as the 15 foot progressive height requirement on page 4 of the memo that shows how that progressive height is measured; it's from the top of slope at a 45 degree angle and nothing is supposed to encroach in that. Staff is recommending that we essentially maintain the 15 foot setback specifically for the garage and the addition but provide a little into that 15 setback for the home addition about a foot or 2 into that 15 foot top of slope for the residential addition. The building envelope would come closer to Harbour Lane. Phelan said the constraints for the second story addition where they need to have a beam to carry the load for the second story but most of that addition could be pushed forward towards Harbour Lane so staff is recommending maintaining most of that 15 foot setback. Staff is recommending an exemption from the progressive height requirement because it is so close to the stream; it really isn't setting anything further back from Castle Creek and through the PUD staff is recommending shifting the setbacks so essentially creating a building envelope which is page 6 of the staff memo; there would be a 15 foot setback from the top of slope with the exception of that residential house addition and a 5 foot setback (the applicant is asking for a 3 foot setback) and a 5 foot front yard setback from Harbour Lane. Staff feels that this will allow for some possibility for the applicant to develop the property and still maintain the health of Castle Creek. Phelan said the applicant would make some changes to the PUD process and when we record a plat that would essentially create the building envelope for the applicant and is a requirement for the resolution. Phelan said that Parks commented on Section 2 of the Resolution that needed some word smiting to ensure that existing spruce tree that is not impacted. Cliff Weiss said the setback to the south between the houses the applicant proposed 3 feet and staff proposed 5 feet and how far is the house directly to the south. Phelan replied there are a number of houses that are quite close but there is a walkway. 011e Johannsson , architect for applicant, said it was about 2� /z feet. 3 Ci Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — July 06, 2010 Weiss asked if the house was 2'h feet. Johannsson said there was a deck and a walkway that was like a balcony that sticks out as part of the house. Phelan said the actual wall of the house was about 5 to 6 feet from the property line. Weiss said that staff was willing to work out the retained area and that must be of interest because he looked at the photograph; Dona Stuart said it was in the blue section. Weiss said the actual cribbing that's there looks like it been there a long time. Stuart replied that's actually concurrent with the 100 year flood line as determined by FEMA at the edge of that cribbing. Phelan stated that they weren't saying that has to be rebuilt. Brian Flynn said that they all noticed it and definitely agree that they are there historically if you do it correctly you would have to move it back so far and redo it there wouldn't be a building site. Flynn said it has survived high water for so many years. Weiss said that you call the lot size 7,000 square foot in one of the diagrams and it seems the lot size itself goes into the river; is that being included in the 7,000. Phelan replied this was one of the things that needs to get cleaned up with platting the building envelope; we need a surveyor to survey the entire lot area which would include the overall lot, gross area but then it would subtract anything below the high water line, any steep slopes so the expectation is to clean that up and give you a baseline. U Erspamer said on page 2 of 7 talks about definitions of a high water line; is that from FEMA also. Phelan replied that's the definition of high water line in the code. Phelan said that if we have a disagreement with an applicant we will bring in engineering and try to find an agreement for calculating. Erspamer asked if they were going to extend this to the next meeting. Phelan answered that it would be good to resolve this creating a building envelope for this property and one of the things if P &Z agrees to shifting the property so the house can shift forward; it might change some of the design variances that they may need to ask for. Erspamer said the photo was taken May not in June when the high water mark was. Erspamer asked what the straw bales were doing on the power plant side, how high did the river come, did it come over that side. Phelan said there were some straw bales for erosion control for work being done on the hydroelectric pipe, that penstock. Stan Gibbs asked why there was a PUD on this property. Phelan replied there was no good reason for it in the resolution zoning this property, RI 5A makes this a non - conforming lot size and a number of things but a lot of times in the 1980's when there was a steep slope they would put a PUD on it. Gibbs said that he wanted to understand figure 4 as to what staff is actually proposing with the 11 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes July 06 2010 garage. Gibbs said the house would be back to where this straight line comes back for the addition on the house. Phelan responded that was right; there was a blue line and it encompassed the rock wall that exists which would encroach about 2 feet into that setback. Phelan said as you can see some of the existing house is outside of the envelope that's allowed to be maintained; right now the proposal would be a garage, it is a pretty tight spot there. Dona Stuart, applicant, said that she has been on this property for 20 years and in Aspen more than 30 years; she said that she respected the rules of the city and has tried very hard to stay within the regulations and reviews but the property has a lot of constraints and we are trying to exist there. Stuart introduced 011e Johannsson her architect. Stuart said that they have come to agreements with Community Development about the residential addition and she feels comfortable with the constraints there. 011e Johannsson said that the new setback on the front will enable them to move what is shown there on the plan towards the street a little bit and he said they can work with that. Stuart said there is that dug out area and the current house has a basement door that goes out (picture 4 shows the egress from the basement). Stuart said that Community Development said if we build to that will be able to make some sort of egress to that already excavated area. Stuart said it was adjacent to the neighbor's house so they would like to request a variance or parking in the garage situation. Stuart said photo 1 gives a good perspective of the neighborhood even though it's in black and white so we are looking at the north side of the Castle Creek Bridge you can see where the power plant area is with the road coming around and the subject property 15 Harbour Lane right across the river. Stuart asked P &Z for a variance to cover the existing parking area with this constraint that we do excavation, peer and grade beam construction and would be hand dug. Stuart said they have worked hours where else this could be positioned, how much it could be moved back and 011e suggested that we could trim the garage by 1 foot and move it 1 foot is this direction. Stuart said that in considering where to place the garage; the neighbor's carport is right at the edge of the traveled road so each of us need a way to get in and out of our garages. Johannsson said this was the hardest project that he has ever worked on and the reality on the ground and in the winter there is so much snow there in the winter. Weiss asked which way the cars would pull into this garage. Johannsson replied the cars would enter from the street; the new location is to pull the whole thing back and egress out here. Jim DeFrancia asked the applicant if they had any objections to the conditions proposed. Stuart replied yes the one says we can't have a garage because we are 5 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minute — July 06, 2010 already parking there and reluctance about how much we are supposed to re- vegetate; am I supposed to re- vegetate the area where she was parking. Erspamer asked what kind of floor do you want in that garage. Johannsson replied he was assuming slab on grade. Erspamer asked if there was underground gas and water so you couldn't put slab on that. Stuart said that she just talked to the gas company and he said that the gas comes from the south; she said that she asked why she had a gas easement to the adjacent property on the south. Erspamer said your title insurance should look at the survey or any improvements. Stuart said that she was the only one on the street that was on city water. Stan Gibbs asked if the code said anything about parking in a setback. Jennifer Phelan responded that I think you can but you can have driveway access through the setback. Gibbs asked if there was going to be a resolution tonight. Phelan replied that she was hoping to bifurcate it and carry the residential designs standards to the August P meeting. Erspamer asked about the word approximately in relation to the setback. Gibbs said maybe we should say 15 feet except at the corner where the house juts out. Weiss said there was a slope and asked if the thing actually cantilevers out off the back here, the garage. Johannsson replied no there's a top of bank here and there's a slope then to the river. Weiss asked what he was talking about posts in construction. Johannsson utilized a drawing to illustrate instead of using a footer that supports this wall along the whole length they can do piers that come down and do a beam that holds up that wall. Johannsson said they would plant behind that to stabilize that further back. April Barker commented that he was talking about would minimize the impact during construction; the impact would still exist to the bank permanently by the placement of impervious surface. Barker said if we were to allow a garage we would require that it be done with that kind of construction in the setback but staff is not supportive of getting into that 15 foot setback with an impervious surface. Weiss said that it sounded like you are not fond of where the garage is about to be located. Barker replied right. No public comments. Weiss said he was struggling with this application. Weiss asked why not a carport instead of a garage; he's not thrilled with the cribbing and doesn't care if it's been there a hundred years or not; everybody wants to get as close to the river as they can and he sympathizes and he realized there was a tough design situation here. 9 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — July 06 2010 Weiss said you would have a lot more flexibility if you scrape and replace rather than trying to figure out how to make the garage not come to a point where it meets the house. Weiss agreed with staff to use the 2 setbacks on the sides and get closer to the road and he was somewhat comfortable with. Weiss said there just wasn't room for a 2 car garage. LJ Erspamer said that they always question staff as well as the applicants; we disagree with staff but use criteria to make a judgment and we do hear what your reasoning is but he is going to agree with staff. Stan Gibbs said that from the environmental perspective is a carport any different from a garage. April Barker replied that a carport still generates increased run off and generates it more often than the area is used to seeing it; engineering is not in favor of that either but she said they would be more flexible with a carport than the slab on grade. Barker said again not that far into top of slope setback. Brian Flynn said when you asked staff if a carport or a single car parked outside the setback was the same as a garage; the roof is a structure either inside or outside the setback. Flynn said that outside of the setback a carport would work. Barker agreed. Gibbs said the garage could be one car and if you have a second car it could be parked next to it. Gibbs said that he would be open to flexibility to some sort or carport or garage but it has to on the site. Jim DeFrancia supported that position. Gibbs said that carport could perhaps violate that front setback towards the road. Weiss said another solution might be to use this side for living and use this for garage. Johannsson said it was a lot smaller and you are pointing at the 15 foot setback as living area; it's so skinny you could park one car coming in straight in from the street. Erspamer asked how many feet it was from the river. Johannsson replied about 20 feet. Erspamer asked how many feet from that 15 foot setback. Johannsson answered it cuts off the corner and maybe 10 feet. Phelan said that engineering would love to see this whole area re- vegetated and where the proposed addition is because that is the most impacted land. Gibbs said that the applicant knows how the commission feels about these issues of building in the setback and when the applicant comes back in August may have a different response. Jim DeFrancia said he was looking at what the recommended action by staff is that we are approving the Stream Margin Review and the PUD Amendment with Special Review for the Stream Margin Review and the single family and continuing for the Residential Design Standards and we've made it clear that we 7 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — July 06, 2010 are supporting the staff's position on this; so he didn't see any reason not to go forward. Stan Gibbs asked if that gets the P &Z where we want to be in August so if they want to make design changes that would be the time to make them. Jennifer Phelan said that you can look at this in two ways; the applicant has a feeling where this Planning & Zoning Commission is landing and they could ask for the whole thing to be continued and be able to work with that proposed envelope or you could make a motion tonight on what was recommended and then the applicant is forced to design within that parameter. Barker said that the addition on the corner of the house as just being aesthetic and is a not a good enough reason to need 2 feet; she agreed with needing support for a foundation wall. Motion: LJErspamer moved to approve Resolution #15, and conditions, a Stream Margin Review, PUD Amendment and a Special Review from the Stream Margin Review Standard to construct a single family residential addition located at 15 Harbour Lane and continue the balance of this hearing to August 3 " for consideration of the Residential Design Standards Variances request and on Section 1 A. with changes to page one deleting "approximately " and adding "with the exception for the corner of the new addition and western facade "and adding subsection "E. In the event the existing house and planned addition are demolished in the future and the property is redeveloped, the building envelope created as a result of this resolution shall be null and void and the propVty will be subject to applicable land use reviews at the time of redevelopment" and the next #2 and replace "the residential addition without impacting or excavating within the drip line of the spruce tree "; seconded by Jim DeFrancia. Roll call vote: Weiss, yes; DeFrancia, yes; Erspamer, yes and Gibbs, yes. APPROVED 4 -0. Discussion prior to vote: Phelan said there was clarification under Section 1 A. with changes to page one deleting "approximately " and adding "with the exception for the corner of the new addition and western facade "and adding subsection "E. In the event the existing house and planned addition are demolished in the future and the property is redeveloped, the building envelope created as a result of this resolution shall be null and void and the property will be subject to applicable land use reviews at the time of redevelopment" and the next 92 and replace "the residential addition without impacting or excavating within the drip line of the spruce tree ". Erspamer said he wanted to delete the fishing easement. Stuart said she didn't care if they walked through the river. Adjourned at 6:20pm 8