Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20210615Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission June 15, 2021 Page 1 of 5 Chairperson McKnight called the regular Planning and Zoning (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30 PM. Commissioners in attendance: Sam Rose, Scott Marcoux, Teraissa McGovern, and Spencer McKnight. Brittanie Rockhill (4:35 pm) and Ruth Carver (4:31 pm) joined after the opening roll call. Staff in Attendance: Amy Simon, Planning Director Kevin Rayes, Planner Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Cindy Klob, Records Manager COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Mr. Rose noted he and Ms. Carver were the only candidates interviewing at the latest board interviews with City Council and assumed the meeting continued previously will possibly need to be continued again. Ms. Simon confirmed there are no new P&Z members and she plans to reach out to Mr. Bendon regarding the schedule for the previously continued 1050 Waters Ave hearing. STAFF COMMENTS None PUBLIC COMMENTS None APPROVAL OF MINUTES DRAFT May 4, 2021 and May 18, 2021 Minutes - Ms. McGovern motioned to approve both sets of minutes and was seconded by Ms. Carver. Mr. McKnight requested a roll call: Ms. Rockhill, yes; Ms. Carver, yes; Mr. Rose, yes; Mr. Marcoux, yes; Ms. McGovern, yes; Mr. McKnight, yes; for a total of six (6) in favor – zero (0) not in favor. The motion passed. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST None PUBLIC HEARINGS Mr. McKnight asked if proper notice was made for the hearing. Ms. Johnson replied sufficient notice was provided for the hearing. Lot 11 Callahan Subdivision - Stream Margin Review Mr. McKnight opened the hearing and turned the floor over to staff for a high-level review. Mr. Rayes stated the hearing is a stream margin review and a special review to establish the top-of-slope on the property. He stated this is a vacant lot with no previous development activity and the applicant wants to obtain clarity on the development rights in regard to its proximity to the Roaring Fork River. No development is proposed at this time. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission June 15, 2021 Page 2 of 5 Mr. McKnight then turned the floor over to the applicant. Mr. Bendon, Bendon Adams, stated this is an empty lot that has been off and on the market in the past. The location of development has always been a big question mark. He described the location of the property and displayed pictures of the property as viewed from the Crystal Lake Rd and another from standing on the property looking towards the river. He displayed a property survey and described the location of the river and the 100 FT setback line which follows the contours of the river, but not necessarily a top-of-slope line. A top-of-slope line defining the property bench from the slope leading to the river has not been defined for the lot. He then displayed a survey showing the proposed top-of-slope based on two things. One is the location of the defined Floodway (100-year flow event), Flood Zone AE (100-year event flood plain) and the Flood Zone X (500- year event flood plain) areas. The second being an analysis of the vegetation and soil conditions. He displayed pictures showing the differences between the vegetation and soil conditions on the property terrain. He then displayed pictures of proposed top-of-slope staked out on the property and noted the 15 FT setback and 45-degree progressive height limit would be from this line. Mr. Bendon stated once the top-of-slope line was defined, he would expect another application for a development to be submitted utilizing the top-of-slope and responding to the criteria related to development. Mr. McKnight asked if the commissioners had questions of the applicant. Seeing none, he then turned the floor over to Staff. Mr. Rayes provided background of the property including it is just over one acre in size and located in the moderate density (R-15) zone district. He displayed a map showing relationship of the lot with the river as well as the 100 ft stream margin review area as measured from the river. Mr. Rayes displayed pictures of the lot showing quite a bit of vegetation from the street and the land sloping towards the back of the lot and the river. He then displayed a survey and described the different flood zones. He pointed out the 100 FT setback line going through the middle of the Special Flood Zone X. He noted the purpose of the 100 FT setback is to set an area triggering a review such as in this case. The review then includes an analysis of the terrain of the specific lot. He stated the proposed line avoids both flood zones and corresponds with the change in terrain and vegetation on the site. He displayed a set of photos along with a map indicating where the picture was taken. Staff finds the proposed top-of-slope is responsive to the site. As part of the conditions of approval, an official wetlands delineation will be submitted before any development can be approved. If any new information comes to light regarding the flood zones, a review of the top-of-slope will be required. He noted many of the standards are not applicable in this case because there is no proposed development at this time. He pointed out the standard related to the planting of native vegetation. He stated Staff finds the applicable standards to be met. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission June 15, 2021 Page 3 of 5 Mr. Rayes stated based on a site visit with the City Engineering department, the top-of-slope line was adjusted in a couple of places which he pointed out on a map of the property. In conclusion, Staff recommends approval of the Stream Margin Review and Special Review establishing the proposed top- of-slope subject to the conditions listed in the resolution. Mr. McKnight asked if there were any questions for staff. Ms. McGovern asked how close a development could be to the river based on the revised top-of-slope. Mr. Rayes stated the line responds to the flood zones. Mr. Bendon stated it would be closest on the western boundary line of the lot which is about 55 FT. Mr. McKnight opened for public comment. Mr. John Gerson, a neighbor of the lot, asked where a house would be logically built because he is concerned if he would be properly notified about any development and wants to keep the non- development nature of the area intact. Mr. McKnight then closed public comment. Mr. Bendon believes the logical location for a house would closer to the western lot boundary and as close to the river as possible to take advantage of the views. He would expect the garage and utilities to be closer to the road. Mr. McKnight reiterated a development will require an application as well. Mr. McKnight opened for commissioner discussion. Ms. McGovern feels the application meets the criteria and establishes a top-of-slope, so she is comfortable with the resolution with the conditions. Mr. Marcoux agrees with Ms. McGovern and feels this is a good starting point. Mr. Rose is for it as well. Ms. Carver has no problem with this at all. Ms. Rockhill feels it meets the criteria and is fine with it. Mr. McKnight agrees with the others. Ms. McGovern motioned to approve Resolution #8, Series 2021 approving special review for an alternative top of slope determination and the stream margin review for the property on Crystal Lake Rd known as Lot 11 Callahan Subdivision. Mr. Rose seconded the motion. Mr. McKnight requested a roll Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission June 15, 2021 Page 4 of 5 call: Ms. Rockhill, yes; Ms. Carver, yes; Mr. Rose, yes; Mr. Marcoux, yes; Ms. McGovern, yes; Mr. McKnight, yes; for a total of six (6) in favor – zero (0) not in favor. The motion passed. Mr. McKnight thanked staff and the applicant. OTHER BUSINESS Discuss In-Person vs. Virtual Meetings Mr. McKnight reviewed the options to the commission noting there is no hybrid option available for the Sister Cities meeting room. Mr. Marcoux asked how it would work if there was large meeting with many public members attending the meeting. Ms. Simon stated the City Attorney is asking the commission to make a decision and stick with it and not change the format back and forth. If the choice is to meet in the Sister Cities room, the commission would be taking a leap in faith because there is no limit on the number of people other than fire code limits. Ms. Simon added there are no really big projects on the immediate agenda. Ms. Johnson reiterated there are no occupancy or safe distancing restrictions in place at this time. Ms. Carver is concerned with the large numbers of people in town and the status of people attending the meetings. She has mixed feelings in that the members miss meeting in person but thought perhaps it may be better to stay with WebEx through the summer. She asked if the commission could make a change later instead of now. Ms. Simon stated they just don’t want to switch back and forth. They could meet in person now and then decide later to change back to WebEx. Ms. Johnson stated doesn’t want P&Z to switch back for a particular applicant and their decision should be based on factors beside a particular application. She also noted the City will be moving to a new building later in the year and the space available may be different than the space in the Armory building. Mr. McKnight stated he doesn’t want to make an executive decision if one or two people really feel their health is in danger and want to be respectful of everybody’s health. Mr. Marcoux stated if there is no hurry, perhaps we should wait longer. Ms. Rockhill stated she is good with either method. She reinforced the idea there is no hurry and she knows the City will be hit with a bunch of people and she will be interacting with a lot of people during the summer. She would not want to bring anything to anyone. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission June 15, 2021 Page 5 of 5 Ms. McGovern agrees with Mr. Marcoux and Ms. Rockhill. She is a bit concerned with the increase in cases in neighboring counties. Mr. Marcoux feels it should be tabled and discussed again closer to the August 3rd meeting date. Ms. Simon stated it can be discussed again in three weeks. She stated she would add it to the July 6th agenda. Ms. McGovern motioned to adjourn and was seconded by Ms. Carver. All in favor and the meeting was adjourned at 5:32 pm. Cindy Klob, Records Manager