Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20200602Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission June 2, 2020 Page 1 of 6 Chairperson McKnight called the meeting to order at 4:30 PM. Commissioners in Attendance: Brittanie Rockhill, James Marcus, Rally Dupps, Teraissa McGovern, Spencer McKnight, Ruth Carver, Don Love. Commissioners not in Attendance: Scott Marcoux Staff in Attendance: Amy Simon, Deputy Planning Director Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Garrett Larimer, Planner II Cindy Klob, Records Manager COMMISSION VIRTUAL MEETING POLICY Mr. McKnight noted a virtual meeting policy as presented in the agenda packet was required for the commission to have in place to conduct meetings virtually. Ms. Carver motioned to approve Resolution 2-2020 and was seconded by Ms. McGovern. Roll Call Vote: Ms. Rockhill, yes; Mr. Marcus, yes; Mr. Dupps, yes; Ms. McGovern, yes; Mr. McKnight, yes; Ms. Carver, yes; Mr. Love, yes. The motion passes seven (7) yes, zero (0) no. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS None APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. Rockhill motioned to approve the February 18, 2020 minutes and was seconded by Ms. McGovern. All in favor, motion carried. STAFF COMMENTS Ms. Simon stated there will not be a meeting on June 16, 2020. Staff will update the commissioners regarding the possibility of a meeting in July. PUBLIC COMMENTS None DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST None PUBLIC HEARING 511 Lazy Chair Ranch Rd – Residential Design Standards, Environmentally Sensitive Area – 8040 Greenline Review, PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM MAY5, 2020. McKnight opened the hearing and asked Ms. Bryan if proper public notice was provided. Ms. Bryan stated it was and the applicant had also signed a waiver agreeing to participate in the hearing virtually. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission June 2, 2020 Page 2 of 6 Mr. McKnight then turned the floor over to Staff. Mr. Larimer provided an overview of the application. The property is located in the Rural Residential (RR) zone district. He identified the surrounding properties and reviewed the annexation history of the subdivision and associated lot. There were three lots in the Arthur O. Pfister Subdivision were annexed at the same time the Maroon Creek Club was annexed, but the lots are not part of the club. He stated there was some lack of clarity in regard to what development was allowed and restricted for the lots. The City Council approved ordinance identified the lot being subject to an 8040 Greenline review, a restricted area for development was established above 8,060 ft except for utilities and the identified the zoning applicable to the lot. He noted the property has gone through previous 8040 Greenline reviews and one approval of which the vesting of it has expired. The applicant is now pursuing a revised design with a new owner and it is subject to a new 8040 Greenline review. The application proposes to demolish an existing single-family residence onsite and develop a new single-family residence as shown in the packet. The applicant is requesting approval of the Residential Design Standards (RDS) review, Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) 8040 Greenline review and a determination of Pre-Development Topography. There was a site visit conducted the same day as the hearing. The commissioners in attendance included McKnight, Ms. Carver, Ms. McGovern, Ms. Rockhill, Mr. Marcus along with applicant representatives including Chris Bendon, BendonAdams, Mark Brunner, DHM Design and Kim Weil, Poss Architecture. Mr. Larimer then showed the existing survey and explained the position of the driveway as it enters the property from the south and wraps around the residence to the north of the residence. He explained the property contains steep slopes that surround an existing bench on the property. He also pointed out the location of the 8,060 ft elevation mark on the property and noted the areas to the right of the elevation line are able to be developed. He then displayed the proposed site plan. One of the more significant changes is the reconfiguration of the driveway and vehicular access. Access is still from the south, but the alignment of the driveway now has it wrapping around to the west of the proposed structure. There are terrace walls and pools to the south. All but two features fall within the existing areas for developed. He also displayed some proposed elevations provided by the applicant and noted the elevations from the east and north are visible from the Maroon Creek Club and Hwy 82. He also displayed the west and south elevations. Regarding the required 8040 Greenline review, staff has found the application complies with all the criteria. Staff has completed an administrative review of the RDS. Due to the location of property outside of town and outside of the infill area, there are a number of standards that do not apply, but the project does comply with all applicable standards. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission June 2, 2020 Page 3 of 6 Mr. Larimer then explained the determination of Pre-Development Topography is provided for in the code to allow site impacted by prior development to submit a survey from a licensed engineer estimating what the topography was prior to any development activity. Once the survey is submitted, community development staff in coordination with the engineering department review it based on historical records. The survey for this application has been reviewed and is accepted in an administration review. He then discussed the criteria used to the 8040 Greenline review which was used by community development, engineering and the parks department. The application complies with all five criteria and staff supports the approval of the request. Regarding the criteria 1) The applicant is planning measures to deal with the water and drainage from area uphill from the property. The engineering department is supportive of the proposed drainage plan. 2) The proposed development plan utilizes the majority of the bench that currently exists on the site. The footprint is getting larger than what currently exists, but the proposed development has been found to be compatible for the site by staff and engineering. 3) The grading plan was found to be compatible with the existing vegetation. Terraced retaining walls will break up the height, allow for planting strips and reduce their grading footprint. 4) The massing of the proposed design as viewed from the north and east does not stand out in staff’s opinion from the surrounding mountain character. 5) The utility infrastructure for parcels in this area is restricted by existing wildlife preservation or conservation zoning overlays. The current infrastructure comes from a number of different locations. The proposed design takes all the infrastructure and routes it through Lazy Chair Ranch road. Staff’s opinion is that this is a better approach for the infrastructure. He added Parks department reviewed the application, visited the site and are supportive of the proposed design. They will require a tree permit and mitigation for areas disturbed which will be addressed in the building permit process. He showed a landscaping plan showing the plantings and the location of the walls. Based on the reviews of the Park and Engineering departments and staff’s review, staff recommends the commission approve the land use reviews. He asked for any questions from the commissioners. Ms. McGovern asked how the historic grade change the height of the building. She then asked what is the difference in height if they went off the pre-development grade instead of the existing grade. Mr. Larimer did not know the net difference, but the pre-development topography provided eliminates the bench so there would be a delta when measured at some points. She said she would ask the applicant as well. Mr. Marcus asked in regard to the 8040 criteria, does the applicant have to pass all five criteria? Mr. Larimer stated there are more than five criteria, but he just highlighted the key ones in his presentation. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission June 2, 2020 Page 4 of 6 He added the application meets all the criteria. Mr. Larimer stated some of the conditions included in the resolution address items that require additional clarification or details to be addressed as the application proceeds. Some of the information was on a conceptual level, so more information will be required during the building permit process. Mr. Love asked the difference between the prior square footage and the proposed new square footage. He also wanted to know if there was any review related to light pollution. Mr. Larimer responded the Zoning department has reviewed the application and has been working with the applicant in preparation for the building permit. To his knowledge, the square footage, floor area and height as identified in the conceptual design comply with the underlying zoning. Regarding light pollution, he stated the project is subject to the outdoor and residential lighting standards which is part of the building permit review. Mr. McKnight then turned the floor over to the applicant. Mr. Bendon, BendonAdams, introduced himself as representing the applicant who were both also on the call. He reviewed the history of the property and the creation of three lots. One is the water tank and two are owned by Van Voorhis. The water tank lot had been donated to the City as part of the Maroon Creek Club development. He then reviewed the features of the current site plan. He then displayed a graphic he handed out at the site visit showing the landscape and building features. He indicated someone had asked about the power poles during the site visit and noted they will be removed and replaced with service that will come through the driveway. He also stated someone had asked about a bunker on the property which had been used pool inhold facility that is no longer in use. Mr. Bendon then showed pictures of the site including the house, the drainage above the house, and the areas that have been regraded. He showed addition pictures depicting views toward Red Mountain and school complex. He then displayed a plat that was part of the earlier clarification efforts by City Council when the 8060 boundary line was identified for the property. He noted Lot 2 is subject to the 8040 Greenline review but Lot 3 is not. He stated there are some dedicated easements that had not been previously clarified. He displayed a site plan for the previously approved project noting is a similar layout as the current application in regard to the access and parking on the property. He stated they did do a comparison of the grading from the prior plan. He noted the previous approval is past its vesting but could be pursued today since the 8040 criteria have not changed since the approval. He believes the earlier project did have a double basement that would not be allowed in a new application. Mr. Bendon stated Marc Diemer, DHM Design, is the landscape architect and participating on the call. He then described the location of the driveway including where a firetruck could turn around and exit Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission June 2, 2020 Page 5 of 6 the property. He pointed out the location of additional wall landscaping features noting their height would typically be in the three to five-foot range. He then displayed their grading plan overlayed on the on the previously approved landscaping plan. He stated this had been provided to staff for review. He then displayed another graphic showing yellow shaded areas where the grading will be in excess of the 2015 plan and red shaded areas where the grading is less than the 2015 plan. He added the 2015 plan went right up to the 8060 line. He then provided a visual of the hill sidestep wall features which take the grades back up the existing grades. A visual of the landscape materials was also displayed. The fire department is fine with the access, turn around and pull off areas related to the property. They have asked them to look for a replacement to the grass paver shown. Mr. Bendon stated Patrick Carpenter and Kim Weil of Poss Architecture are the architects for the project. Mr. Carpenter and Mr. Weil along with Andy Wisnoski are on the call if anyone has questions. Mr. Bendon stated the floor area is an allowable of 6,748 sf. They are also adding a historic Transferrable Development Right (TDR) to the site so the total allowable is just at 6,998 sf. He stated the pre-development topography did help the project in the five to ten sf range with the floor area because the existing topography has some steep sections. Mr. Bendon showed the overall layout of the property and discussed using modules to break up the overall massing. He also showed character renderings of the building elevations. He noted there was an extensive materials packet included with the application and is in the agenda packet. He stated the primary materials are stone and wood. He pointed out where the utilities would be brought into the property. He stated Roaring Fork Engineering is the civil engineer for the project. Mr. Richard Goulding is available for questions. He added the existing infrastructure includes a dead-end water line from the tank which may impact service performance. The new infrastructure will be looping the water line out through Lazy Ranch Rd. He then provided visuals as approaching the site from the south. A rendering from the high school was also provided with an approximation of where the new home would be viewable on the property. Another visual was from the Hwy 82 side of the property showing the approximate location of the home. Mr. Bendon concluded his presentation by stating they were fine with the conditions included in the draft resolution. Mr. McKnight asked if there were any questions from the commissioners. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission June 2, 2020 Page 6 of 6 Ms. Carver asked how long the existing curtain drain has been on the property. Mr. Weil estimated it’s been there as long as the house has been there. Mr. Weil added in his opinion the pre-developed topography did not provide any advantage in regard to the height of the building. The most critical point in height on the structure is the eastern elevation which is measured from a patio that is below both pre-existing and current grade. Ms. McGovern asked Mr. Bendon to display the eastern elevation and Mr. Weil pointed out a terrace in the upper left elevation which is below both existing and pre- development grade. Mr. McKnight then opened for public comment to which there was none, so he closed public comment. Mr. McKnight then opened for board deliberation. Mr. Dupps, Ms. McGovern and Ms. Carver believe the application is straight forward and they have no issues with it. Mr. McKnight stated he was onboard and asked if anyone disagreed with the application to which no one responded. Other commissioners also agreed the application was clean and well done. Mr. McKnight asked for someone to make a motion to approve the resolution as written. Mr. Marcus motioned to approve the resolution as written and was seconded by Ms. Carver. Mr. McKnight requested a roll call. Roll call: Ms. Rockhill, yes; Mr. Marcus, yes; Mr. Dupps, yes; Ms. McGovern, yes; Mr. McKnight, yes; Ms. Carver, yes; Mr. Love, yes for a total of seven (7) – zero (0). The motion passed. Mr. McKnight thanked everyone and asked for someone to motion to adjourn. Ms. McGovern motioned to adjourn and was seconded by Ms. Rockhill. All in favor and the meeting was adjourned at 5:22pm. OTHER BUSINESS None Cindy Klob, Records Manager