Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20140909Special Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission September 9, 2014 LJ Erspamer, Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Stan Gibbs, Jasmine Tygre, and Keith Goode. Also present from City staff; Debbie Quinn, Jennifer Phelan, and Justin Barker. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Ms. Tygre noted a story in the previous Friday of the Aspen Daily News which covered an affordable housing project on Main Street previously reviewed by the P&Z Commission. She read in the story the units will only be available to buyers with dependents. She did not think this was part of the presentation and wondered when this change was made. Ms. Phelan stated the condition is not in the approval. Ms. Tygre asked if such a condition could have been added after the approval. Both Ms. Phelan and Mr. Barker were not aware of this condition on those units. Ms. Phelan stated the Aspen\Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) designates priorities for certain types of units based on occupancy numbers. Mr. Erspamer stated he had read the recently retracted Ordinance 19 (Lodging Incentive Ordinance). He is not against an incentive program, but found some interesting items in the ordinance. One was the 10 year provision which allows the owner to convert the units to fractional or condominiums after 10 years. He felt this only makes it a temporary lodge initiative. He wished P&Z would be allowed to vet the document in a public setting as opposed to staff bringing selected questions to P&Z. Ms. Phelan stated most people wait for the application to be presented to City Council prior to stepping forward with comments. Another item he found shocking was any lodge developer can obtain a loan from the city with no requirements. The finance director will handle the loan process. For a regular mortgage, the originator does not decide on the loan, it’s a committee of three or five who do not know you. There is no requirement for loan to value and the city will wait a year to put a lien on the property. During that year, a developer could secure a 100% loan on the property and then the city is in third or fourth position. If the developer defaults, then it becomes yet another BMC debacle of 2008 in which the city loses their money. He feels it is important to stay involved in the review process on future lodge incentive programs. Ms. Tygre asked Mr. Erspamer if he wanted the review to be more formal with an actual vote from P&Z prior to it going to council. Mr. Erspamer feels any land use ordinance should be vetted before HPC and P&Z as part of the process. He feels this would result in a better document presented to the council. Ms. Phelan stated the process used to include HPC and P&Z reviews, but it has been changed. Ms. Quinn stated it would require an ordinance to change the process. Ms. Phelan stated currently there is a requirement to obtain feedback from the commission. Ms. Quinn asked Mr. Erspamer if he would prefer if the feedback could be based on reviewing a draft of the ordinance. He also disagrees with the process to obtain feedback not including the public which means there are no notes or minutes and then staff presents their interpretation of the discussion to council. Mr. Gibbs also felt it would be better to have the ordinance to review vs. preselected questions which were select and perhaps too broad. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Phelan reminded staff of the regular meeting scheduled next week on the September 16th. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments. 1 Special Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission September 9, 2014 MINUTES – August 12, 2014 Mr. Gibbs moved to approve the August 12, 2014 minutes, seconded by Ms. Tygre. Mr. Erspamer asked the wording a sentence under the Declaration of Conflict of Interested section be corrected. The change was noted to be made prior to finalizing the minutes. All in favor, motion carried. MINUTES – August 19, 2014 Mr. Gibbs moved to approve the August 19, 2014 minutes, seconded by Ms. Tygre. All in favor, motion carried. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST None. Public Hearing – 511 Lazy Chair, 8040 Greenline Review Ms. Quinn submitted the affidavits of public notice as Exhibit C demonstrating notice has been properly provided. Mr. Barker, Planner with the Community Development Department, presented the project to the commission. It is an 8040 Greenline Review located at 511 Lazy Chair Road. The 8040 Greenline Review is a P&Z review of all development at, above or 150 ft measured below the elevation of 8,040 ft. The purpose of the review is to protect the ecological, environmental and scenic significance of the high elevation areas throughout a heightened review process. The subject property is approximately 2.4 acres in size in the rural residential zone district and is also part of the Arthur O Pfister Subdivision which is completely surrounded by the Maroon Creek Club PUD. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing single family home currently on the property and replace it with a new single family home. For this property, there was a recent subdivision amendment. Ordinance #12-2014 placed an additional restriction on the property that no development could occur above 8,060 ft except for what is reasonably necessary for utility infrastructure, storm water mitigation, maintenance and restoration of native landscaping and wildfire mitigation purposes. The only development proposed at this time above the line is to bury the existing electrical line, which staff supports and finds it to be in line with those particular needs. Staff has found this project is generally in compliance with the review criteria for 8040 Greenline Review. The proposed development will be larger than the existing structure which inherently brings more impacts to the environment, but through the presented application, they have shown how they will minimize or complete mitigate those additional impacts created by the development. Staff is in support of this application. The engineering and parks departments have reviewed the projects and any concerns they have are included in the proposed resolution. Mr. Erspamer asked if there were any questions for staff. 2 Special Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission September 9, 2014 Mr. Erspamer asked what portion of the building can be above the 8,040 ft line. Mr. Barker stated the only portion that can be above this line are the items written into the ordinance #12-2014 which includes the utility infrastructure and storm water mitigation. The height of the building itself can be above the line, but the development cannot be located above the line. Mr. Erspamer asked if the foundation would be considered the development at which Mr. Barker confirmed as correct. Mr. Erspamer turned the floor over to the applicant. Mr. Dustin Anderson with Forum Phi Architecture is representing the applicant for the proposed development. Mr. Anderson stated they worked with the Parks Department prior to any demolition or construction on the site to discuss any concerns previously listed. He stated those concerns would be addressed prior to submitting for a permit. In regards to the mass and height reflected in the drawings, the proposed structure is well below the height limitation as per the building ordinance. Mr. Erspamer asked if there were any questions for the applicant. Mr. Erspamer asked what seed would be used to restore the mitigated utility burial area so it will look like the natural terrain. Mr. Anderson stated an Aspen Parks Department approved seed mix will be used to restore the area. The approved seed mix does not rely on future irrigation to maintain the seeded areas. Mr. Erspamer asked Mr. Barker if the retaining walls are included in the criteria to be judged. Mr. Barker stated the retaining walls are not to be considered in the criteria for this project. Mr. Erspamer also asked that the groundwater is also not part of the discussion. Mr. Barker confirmed the groundwater is not to be considered in the criteria for this project. Mr. Erspamer opened for public comment. Mr. Rudi Scheidt lives at 120 Pfeifer which is adjacent to the property in the application. He understands what the committee does, but he is not sure the whole story has been told about the project. He has some environmental concerns as well as concerns about the scope and the nature of the size of the home. He is impressed by the drawings of the home presented with the application, but stated the drawings only represent 1/3 of the story. The other 2/3 of the home is underground. The proposed home is 30,000 ft below grade. The construction time for the home is estimated between four – six years. He has not seen the full plans and project timeline, but as a neighbor he is concerned about the excavation of the dirt to dig 55 ft down. He is asking the commission to delay the decision until they have the opportunity to review the full scope and staff has an opportunity to review the full environmental impact of this project. He is concerned about the homes in Aspen being built below grade because they have found a loophole within the laws to build massive structures. He questions what the true value of these homes going forward. The proposed 40,000 sf is four times the size of any home in the subdivision. In regards to the environmental impact he wanted to question staff’s comments regarding the true impact based on the depth of the project as noted in item #2 on p 41 of the agenda packet. In regards to item #9 on p 42 of the packet, he is concerned that the Lazy Chair Road is small and narrow. He is not sure the road can handle stress from the number of excavation trucks necessary to haul out the dirt for the project, which he has heard is in the 100s. He also feels the additional truck traffic will have an adverse effect on the home sitting below the road. He is also 3 Special Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission September 9, 2014 concerned the length and noise of the construction will impact the natural life in the area as well. He noted the board’s discussions in previous meetings regarding structures being out of place with the neighborhood. Although the above grade portion of the structure is in line with the neighboring structures, the overall size of the proposed structure is four times larger than anything in the neighborhood. Shlomo Ben-Hamoo also lives in area and has similar concerns as Mr. Scheidt. He believes there is also a helicopter pad in the application. He enjoys the space the neighborhood currently provides and prefers it stays the way it currently exists. He feels the proposed structure is too large for the neighborhood. He wanted to know if there is any limitation on the sf they can build. Ms. Phelan wanted to clarify a few items brought up. She assumes both of the gentlemen who spoke at public comment live in the Maroon Creek Club. In regards to what can be built in the Maroon Creek Club, there are 10 single family lots off of Tiehack Rd that allow 10,000 sf of floor area. There are 33 lots that allow either 5,500 or 6,000 sf of floor area. All of them are allowed a 4,000 sf basement exemption and a 500 sf garage exemption based on county approval for the subdivision. In addition, the City Council approved on the previous night the allowance of landing of transferrable development rights on those properties of 500 or 750 sf of floor area. So some larger lots allow for larger sf totals. This meeting tonight is not a zoning review, but the Community Development Department is estimating the allowable floor area for this subject lot is 6,700 sf which tends to be mostly above grade. A certain amount of the basement will be included in the floor area. So people can build large basements which don’t count towards the overall sf allowed for the lot. The application states the basement is roughly 3,800 sf. Mr. Anderson stated there is a walk out and a sub grade basement, each being around 15,000 sf per floor. Then there is the main level and the master suite. Ms. Phelan then asked for the gross size of the building at which Mr. Anderson replied the size is about 38,000 sf. Ms. Phelan stated there currently is not any requirements for below grade caps. Ms. Phelan stated this property was annexed in 1996 at the same time as the Maroon Creek Club. Mr. Erspamer closed public comment. Mr. Erspamer opened for applicant rebuttal/clarification. Mr. Anderson wanted to respond to some of the public comments. In regards to the reference to the four to six year construction timeframe, he stated the actual numbers have not been released from the Forum Phi office. As they are proceeding with the development of the plans, they identified a conservative construction period of 3.5 years. They are working on engineering that back to the 18-24 months as requested by the Maroon Creek Club. He also wanted to reiterate they are not part of the HOA. A helicopter pad was previously licensed with the FAA by Betty Pfister. The owner owns both lots 2 and 3 and remainder is in the Maroon Creek Club common space. Mr. Erspamer asked Mr. Anderson if he was aware of the estimated weight of the trucks. Mr. Anderson knows there is a weight restriction in the spring for the road. Mr. Erspamer asked Ms. Phelan to confirm if they should only be discussing the 8040 Greenline review at tonight’s meeting. Ms. Phelan said they were not aware of the extra fully sub grade basement because it is not included in the design set, so the Engineering Department has not had an opportunity to even look at it in light of the review standards. Ms. Phelan feels the decision should be continued to allow for the application to be completely reviewed. 4 Special Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission September 9, 2014 Mr. Gibbs found the application and staff analysis to be lacking in detail regarding the size of the building. He would like to see a comparison of the footage above and below the 8040 line as well as a comparison to the existing building. If there are variances to be granted, this application would need to be presented again, so he feels it would be appropriate to continue it at this time. Ms. Tygre agreed. Mr. Erspamer stated he would like to see definitive criteria vs. “we anticipate” or “we feel”. He is also in favor of continuing it as well. Mr. Goode asked the applicant if the Parks Department was made aware of the subgrade basement. Mr. Anderson stated it was not required until they submit for permit. Their submittal is consistent with the 8040 Greenline Review. Ms. Tygre moved to continue the hearing until September 16, 2014 with a purpose of determining the date certain for the continuance. Mr. Goode seconded the motion. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 5:14 pm. Cindy Klob City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager 5