Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20230620 REGULAR MEETING ASEPN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 20TH, 2023 Chairperson McGovern opened the Regular meeting of the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission at 4:30pm. Commissioners in attendance: Maryann Pitt, Tracy Sutton, Marcus Blue, Eric Knight, Ken Canfield, Jason Suazo, Tom Gorman, Christine Benedetti, and Teraissa McGovern. Staff present: Amy Simon, Planning Director Kevin Rayes, Principal Planner Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Mike Sear, Deputy Clerk COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Ms. McGovern welcomed the new commissioners. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon confirmed to the applicant that there are five new members of the Planning & Zoning Commission and stated that they have all received some initial training. She then went over the upcoming meeting schedule. She also noted that Mr. Kevin Rayes was recently promoted to Principal Planner. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None MINUTES: None DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: Mr. Canfield stated that he was conflicted as he was a neighbor of the property in front of them. He then left the meeting. SUBMISSION OF PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS: Ms. Johnson said that she reviewed public notice, and that notice was provided per the Land Use Code for the agenda item. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Lot 11 Callahan Subdivision – Stream Margin Review – Determination of Pre- Development Topography Mr. Rayes introduced the item as a Land Use review for an undeveloped lot. He went over some details of the site locatfon and mentfoned that since this proposed development is within 100 feet of the Roaring Fork River, it triggers a higher-level review as it is deemed an environmentally sensitfve area. He then turned things over to the applicant. Applicant Presentation: Sara Adams - Bendon Adams Ms. Adams introduced herself, Julie and David Eskenazi, the owners of the property, as well as other members of the design team. Mr. and Mrs. Eskenazi went over their interest in developing the property and talked about their tfme in Aspen. Ms. Adams went over details of the property and stated that the top of slope was established by P&Z in 2021 under a previous owner. She displayed site diagrams showing the top of slope line and where the proposed house would be located in relatfon to this line. With this diagram, she stated that the proposed development would comply with the 15-foot setback from the top of slope required for the stream margin review. She then talked about the progressive height limit requirement using a diagram for the Land Use Code. Then showing an elevatfon of the proposed development, she stated it complies with the progressive height limit as well as the 25-foot total height limit. Next, she explained the process for the establishment of the pre-development topography and the reasons for it on this lot. She noted that the Residentfal Design Standards REGULAR MEETING ASEPN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 20TH, 2023 administratfve review has been completed and that no variances were being requested. She mentfoned that they have an agreement with Crystal Lake to reroute the lake’s outilow pipe onto an adjacent property. The current pipe routes outilow onto the Eskenazi’s property. She noted that a conditfon of approval in the resolutfon states that the pipe needs to be installed prior to issuance of the building permit. They are asking that conditfon be amended to state that the design of the pipe be approved by the Engineering department before permit issuance. She then went over additfonal review criteria related to the landscape plan and tree removal and how they were met. Ms. Pitt asked about any impacts of the reroutfng of the outilow pipe. Ms. Adams said it would mainly keep water from flowing onto the property and that the water would stfll return to the river as intended. Ms. Pitt also asked about the different topography heights of the property and what they would be reduced to. The applicant team explained the changes to theses heights and how and where they would be leveling the property out. There was some discussion of the frequency of outilow from the lake, which currently is minimal. Staff Presentation: Kevin Rayes – Principal Planner Mr. Rayes said he would be giving an overview of the project but mainly highlightfng the staff review criteria. He encouraged the commissioners to focus on those criteria. He noted that the pre- development topography is usually an administratfve review, but since they were already coming before P&Z for the stream margin review, they combined them. He then went over some history and details of the lot and the reasoning of bringing these reviews to P&Z. Since part of the proposed development falls within 100 feet of the Roaring Fork River, the stream margin review was triggered. Next, he highlighted and explained the designated flood zones that exist on the property and described the top of slope line and how it was determined. This line is what everything is based off and can be thought of like a setback line. It determines where development can and cannot happen. He then overlayed this line on the proposed site plan and noted that nothing can be developed with 15 feet of it. Next, he went over the applicable stream margin review criteria and stated that staff finds these to be met. He moved on to the pre-development topography review and showed a topography map and pictures of the current conditfons of the lot. He then showed the applicant’s proposal showing what the grade would have been before development. He finished up by statfng that staff recommends that P&Z approve this applicatfon with the conditfons included in the resolutfon. He showed a few proposed amendments to language in the resolutfon related to the Crystal Lake overflow pipe as noted by Ms. Adams in her presentatfon and the pre-development topography. Ms. Pitt asked if any of the originally proposed walkway along the river would be allowed to stay. Mr. Rayes said that nothing outside of natfve vegetatfon would be allowed within the 15-foot setback from the top of slope line noted in the diagrams. Mr. Blue asked about the locatfon of the proposed drywell. Mr. Rayes pointed it out on the site plan and noted that it would be outside of the 15-foot setback from top of slope. Ms. Pitt asked if the HOA had a say in this. Mr. Rayes noted that as part of the land use review and building applicatfon review, the applicant has to provide HOA sign off and that this has been done by the applicant. Ms. Johnson noted that HOA approval is not part of P&Z’s purview for review, and they have no way of enforcing HOA rules. REGULAR MEETING ASEPN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 20TH, 2023 Ms. Benedetti asked about the amended conditfon in the resolutfon related to the overflow pipe and wondered if there could be a situatfon where there isn’t a solutfon to reroute the pipe. Mr. Rayes said that the Engineering Department has taken a good look at this and do not see any fundamental flaws that would be of concern. Mr. Knight wanted to know how close to the river a proposed development could go before it became a concern for staff. Mr. Rayes said it is all based on the top of slope line and restated that nothing can be developed within 15 feet of that line. Ms. McGovern closed the presentatfon portfon of the hearing and opened the public comment. PUBLIC COMMENT: Mr. Jim Gerson introduced himself and stated that he was a neighbor of this property. He complimented the process that is gone through to make sure the neighbors and community are well served. He was here to support David and Julie Eskenazi. He was concerned that the natural vegetatfon along the river will remain in place as it is. Ms. Adams responded that yes, the vegetatfon along the river would be protected and preserved. Ms. McGovern closed the public comment portfon of the hearing and opened board discussion. BOARD DISCUSSION: Mr. Gorman complimented staff and the applicant on their presentatfon and that he thought all significant questfons had been answered. Mr. Suazo was generally supportfve of this but would like to add some more structured language around the required fencing to be installed at the top of slope, designed to protect the natural vegetatfon. Ms. Simon stated that there is an entfre book of constructfon management regulatfons that the Engineering Department manages and didn’t think they should interfere with their executfon of that. Ms. Johnson said that if the commissioners wanted, they could add language that required the applicant to comply with the City’s Engineering constructfon management plan. Ms. McGovern requested Mr. Rayes to make that amendment to the resolutfon language. Ms. Pitt, Mr. Knight, Ms. Sutton, and Mr. Blue were all in support of the project. Ms. McGovern believed the applicatfon demonstrated compliance with the review criteria for the stream margin, progressive height, and pre-development topography. Ms. Johnson noted that with the newly appointed members, they now had a full board. This consists of seven regular and two alternates and with Mr. Canfield recusing himself and alternate would need to vote in his place. Unfortunately, City Council did not designate who was the first and second alternates. It was decided that Ms. Pitt would vote on this item. MOTION: Mr. Gorman motfoned to approve the resolutfon as amended. Ms. Benedetti seconded. Roll call vote: Ms. Pitt, yes; Mr. Blue, yes; Mr. Knight, yes; Mr. Suazo, yes; Mr. Gorman, yes; Ms. Benedetti, yes; Ms. McGovern, yes. 7-0 vote, motfon passes. Mr. Gorman motfoned to adjourn the meetfng. Ms. Pitt seconded. All in favor, meetfng adjourned. ____________________ Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk