Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20160802Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning July 5, 2016 1 Mr. Keith Goode, Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Jasmine Tygre, Ryan Walterscheid, Skippy Mesirow and Keith Goode. Brian McNellis arrived late to the meeting. Kelly McNicholas Kury, Jason Elliott, Jesse Morris, Spencer McKnight were not present for the meeting. Also present from City staff; Debbie Quinn, Jessica Garrow and Ben Anderson. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Ms. Tygre stated the Alpina Haus and Copper Horse employee housing buildings are for sale. She recalls they were part of the settlement for the properties at the base of the mountain a long time ago. She stated the deed restrictions on the properties are scheduled to run out in 22 years. She was not aware deed restrictions could expire and if so, there may be multiple situations around town where the older, cheaper, low income rental units are going to disappear. She would like Staff or Housing to take a look into it. Ms. Garrow stated it is a real issue and noted Centennial and Castle Ridge have similar issues with the deed restrictions. In the mid 1980’s when projects were approved, they were approved by the County Commissioners the deed restrictions for 50 years or 20 years after the death of the last commissioner who had approved the project. She stated Staff and Housing have been looking into it for a number of years. Absent a development application, the City cannot force a new deed restriction. Ms. Quinn added she is currently looking at a remodel for one of these properties. The Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) is requesting an update to the deed restriction. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Garrow had a few items to discuss: 1) A regular P&Z meeting is scheduled for September 6th which is the day after Labor Day. She wanted to confirm there will be a quorum. Two members responded yes and one responded no. Cindy Klob, Records Manager, will send out an email to the entire board to gather input. 2) Moratorium update – The board will be receiving an invitation for small group meetings during the last week in August. All the consultants will be in town that week. There will be a long work session with City Council on the 29th if any members are interested in attending. They also want to conduct small group meetings to look at the different options in terms of parking and use mix. They are asking for specific feedback on the direction of the code as well as highlighting statements from the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP). 3) She asked the board for their thoughts regarding their preferred level of involvement once the actual code amendment drafting begins. They are continuing community outreach through September and then plan to go to City Council with specific language in late October. They have not brought specific language to P&Z for a while and asked if they would be interested in a meeting to review the language and larger policy goals in October. The majority of the board felt they wanted a meeting. Ms. Garrow stated they would work it into the schedule and to expect an email from herself or Mr. Phillip Supino, the long range planner. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning July 5, 2016 2 MINUTES July 19, 2016 Draft Meeting Minutes Mr. Walterscheid motioned to approve the minutes as provided and Mr. McNellis seconded the motion. Ms. Tygre abstained because she felt she had not had the time to review the minutes. All others were in favor, motion passed. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST There were no declarations. PUBLIC HEARINGS 100 Puppy Smith St (ACES) – Stream Margin Review and a Minor Amendment to a Detailed Review Ms. Garrow requested the board table the hearing because they are waiting on a survey required by Engineering to complete their review of the application. Once it has been received, a new hearing date will be established and the hearing will be re-noticed. Mr. Goode opened the hearing. Ms. Tygre motioned to table the application to a date uncertain and was seconded by Mr. Mesirow. Mr. Goode called for a roll call. Roll call: Mr. McNellis, yes; Mr. Walterscheid, yes; Mr. Mesirow, yes; Ms. Tygre, yes; and Mr. Goode, Yes; for a total of five Yes and zero No (5-0). The motion passed. Per Ms. Quinn’s suggestion, Mr. Goode noted for the record there were no members of the public in attendance for the hearing. Mr. Goode then closed the hearing. 300 Lake Ave – Hallam Lake Bluff Review Mr. Goode opened the hearing. Mr. Goode asked if notice had been appropriately provided. Ms. Quinn stated she reviewed both affidavits of notice and found notice was appropriate. The affidavits were entered as Exhibits E and F. Mr. Goode then turned the floor over to Staff. Mr. Ben Anderson, Planner, provided a review of the project. He stated this project is a proposed demolition and redevelopment of a single family residence in the Medium Density Residential (R-6) zone district with a Hallam Lake Bluff Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) overlay. Because of the parcel’s location within the Hallam Lake Bluff ESA, this review is a necessary step in the development process. He then displayed and reviewed the criteria as included in exhibit A of the Staff’s findings within the agenda packet. He noted the Hallam Lake Bluff Review’s (HLBR) purpose is to protect the top of slope, the vegetation and the view shed from Hallam Lake itself. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning July 5, 2016 3 He provided a slide of the proposed site plan (Figure 2 on p17 of agenda packet) and reviewed the features as they directly relate to the HLBR. The top of slope cuts across the back of the property and is indicated by the red line. The green line represents the proposed second story deck of the house which needs to remain out of the 15 ft top of slope setback. One aspect which generated a lot of discussion with the planning, engineering and parks staff were the existing retaining walls which are marked in orange and the stone step way marked in blue on the site plan. The HLBR criteria notes anything within the 15 ft top of slope setback is prohibited. These items represent an existing nonconformity and Staff is recommending those features remain simply to protect the top of slope. Staff is concerned the removal of the features would cause more disturbance to the top of slope soil. He then discussed the building envelope and noted the proposal requests the replacement of existing patio pavers with new pavers. This is allowed by the HLBR as long as the feature is at grade. He noted he would come back to this in a moment. The purple line on the site plan represents the building envelope established in a subdivision exemption plat application in 1987-1988. The review criteria #3 is one of the more important to consider as it attempts to protect the view shed from Hallam Lake. It requires a 45-degree progressive view plane from top of slope. The original design was included in the memo when it went through an administrative residential design standard review. There have been some minor changes to the rear of house to comply with this review criterion including the roof line adjustments, deck size reduction and fenestration adjustments. The new design does comply with the 45-degree requirement. As Staff was discussing the project, it was noticed there was a large amount of impervious surface surrounding the house. Staff then looked at the plat notes and subdivision exemption which created the lot in 1988. There is a very clear plat note in 1987 indicating no decks or structures shall be constructed outside the building envelope. Additional language in the application of the subdivision exemption discussed the importance of the building envelope to protect the resources around Hallam Lake. In the proposal for the project, they are asking to replace the existing patio with new pavers on pretty much the same footprint. Staff has not been able to locate permits or subsequent approvals to the original plat to suggest this feature was legally included. Therefore, Staff is recommending removal of all patio and hardscape features from outside the building envelope except for minimal access to the garage entry and retaining walls previously mentioned during this hearing. In conclusion, Staff is recommending approval of the HLBR subject to some conditions. There is a set of conditions within the draft resolution pretty typical to approvals in ESAs. Staff is also asking for the inclusion of a couple other conditions: 1) Removal of patio and other structures from outside of the designated building envelope 2) Allow the existing retaining walls and steps at the top of slope to remain as long as they remain in their current state. He then noted Staff is requesting one addition to Section 2.2 to include “at the rear of the property” to specify the location. Mr. Goode then asked the commissioners for any questions for staff. Mr. Walterscheid asked what the City’s definition of deck was when the plat was recorded. He understands the definition now as being anything over six inches above grade. Mr. Anderson searched for a definition within the date of the plat and found the word structure is used and it tended to be a bit grey. He then turned to the subdivision exemption application and Staff memo in an attempt to Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning July 5, 2016 4 understand the intent. The language was supportive of limiting things to the building envelope. He noted the language was not exactly clear in 1987. Ms. Garrow noted they would be having a different conversation if there was no building envelope and they were just concerned with setbacks. Because the building envelope is so specific, there is an issue. They consider a flagstone patio a similar feature to a deck. Mr. Walterscheid asked if Staff has the same opinion if pervious pavers are used and Ms. Garrow responded they do. Mr. Mesirow asked for detail regarding the maintenance or suggested maintenance of the existing wall and pathway and why it would create more disturbance to remove them. Mr. Anderson responded they are only minor features and the retaining wall appears to come up to the property line and may also be on the neighboring property. Other projects in ESA’s similar to this one were allowed to maintain the existing nonconforming uses to remain as long as they didn’t undermine what Engineering and Parks is concerned about for the area. He added in some instances they have realized that removing the features was more disruptive than letting them remain. Ms. Garrow stated they have had a number of HLBRs lately and noted the features have to be removed by hand tools. Staff including Engineering and Parks have seen not enough care taken during removal and may be better to keep the retaining wall features in these areas. Mr. McNellis asked if the walls provide slope stabilization and Ms. Garrow replied they do and if removed, a bunch of regrading and revegetation is required to prevent the slope from falling down. Mr. Mesirow asked if this disturbance was short term or long term. Ms. Garrow stated over the past few years there have been questions regarding the removal techniques despites Staff’s efforts to identify a good construction management plan and inspections. She then stated it is under P&Z’s purview to make a different determination and make changes. Mr. McNellis asked if this was vacant lot, what kind of review would happen to justify building envelope. Mr. Anderson replied it was created as a result of a lot split in 1988 and applicant at the time requested for a subdivision exception which did not require the same extensive review process. To his understanding, this was the same timeframe in which the Hallam Lake Bluff standards were being codified. Mr. McNellis asked there was any detail on how the build envelope was defined. Mr. Anderson stated there was a fairly extensive discussion within the exemption application and Staff memo. It appeared there was more concern with the lot to the north (lot 1) because it was a historic property. Mr. McNellis asked if the resulting structure went to border of the envelope to which Mr. Anderson replied yes. Mr. Anderson believes the building envelope was established prior to the process. Ms. Garrow noted the graphic on p 17 showing the of the deck only, so the building envelope defines where the actual building can go as well as a specific space for decks, indicating they were pretty detailed in the particular building envelope in ways we don’t see in others of this era. Mr. McNellis asked what procedure would be used for amending a build envelope. Ms. Garrow replied it depends on how it was created. There is a building envelopes for ESAs and would be reviewed by P&Z. It is possible this one goes to Council because it was through a subdivision process and not through the ESA process. Mr. Goode then turned the floor over to the applicant. Mr. Rick Neiley and Mr. David Johnston represented the applicant. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning July 5, 2016 5 Mr. Neiley stated they are generally okay with the conditions of approval. They are a bit concerned with the patios. He feels it makes sense to keep the retaining walls and best he can tell; they were permitted in June 1990 under permit number 745 in the building department. The permit states a change in the retaining wall from poured concrete to block per attachment, which was not attached. He did find a set of plans from 2003 when the property changed out the French doors and the patios were included in the drawings. It seems likely the patio area was permitted based on number of permits on file. He believes at the time of the lot split, there were no protective provisions in the land use code. Now there are provisions. He found in Staff’s memo at the time a statement acknowledging the applicant’s awareness of the sensitivity of the area and voluntarily proposed a building envelope. He noted the current applicant is also sensitive to protecting the Hallam Bluff and Lake area. He believes outside living space seems to be an acceptable form of development in general. The outside hardscape creates walkways around the structure and serves as the entrance pathway from Lake Ave to the driveway. He researched the definition of patio at the time without success. He has always used the understanding is a structure outside the building envelope that is 30 in height. He feels when the approval was granted, the building envelope was voluntarily created and was intended to be the building footprint itself. He stated if you look at the older land use approvals, it does not mention patios at all. He believes the intent was for there to be an elevated deck protruding into the deck envelope within setback. It is apparent the existing patio has been in place possibly when the house was completed in 1991. He believes the retaining wall was probably built using heavy equipment and was completed in 1990 sometime before the house was completed. It is heavily vegetated now and does not believe it would be visible from Hallam Lake. The applicant appreciates Staff’s position on the wall. Mr. Johnston stated if one of the intentions was to bring back an ecological approach to the decks, they would consider this type of green approach. They would consider looking at revising the hardscape if it improves their position. Mr. Johnston stated their plan to build on the same footprint that exists today and avoid any deep excavation. Mr. Neiley stated in terms of the current code definitions, they really are not that useful as how a deck and patio is defined. He feels they are talking about a patio for the back of the house since it is at grade. Under the current HLBR standards, all development within the 15 ft setback from the top of slope shall be at grade. He added they have thought about amending the envelope if proved necessary but they hope to avoid this action. In conclusion, he stated they are happy except for the recommendation regarding the patio. Mr. Goode asked if the commissioners had any questions for the applicant. Mr. McNellis asked Staff if the Residential Design Standards (RDS) have anything regarding pervious surface to the property line or within setbacks. Ms. Garrow replied there is nothing in the RDS. There are requirements regarding what can happen in a setback which is the 30 in at grade. Mr. Johnston noted Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning July 5, 2016 6 they were approved for the RDS for the design as provided in the packet. It did not address the site issue being discussed today. They plan to go back to RDS to ensure the roof lines do not change anything. Mr. Mesirow asked Staff if the intent of the current guidelines and code is it to protect environment or inhibit an at-grade deck. Ms. Garrow replied the regulations are about habitat and vegetation. Secondarily, it is about light pollution and the views from the lake and the bluff. Mr. Walterscheid asked Staff if this was a setback issue instead of a building envelope issue, would this conversation be happening. Ms. Garrow replied no. Mr. Neiley noted Staff was very thorough and raised some issues. Mr. Goode then opened for public comment. None appeared so he then closed public comment. Mr. Goode then opened for commissioner discussion. Mr. McNellis understands Staff’s position, but he doesn’t object to the applicant’s proposal. This lot should play be same rules as similar properties in the west end. He is poised to approve it as presented by the applicant. Mr. Walterscheid agrees with Mr. McNellis. He thinks the definitions of decks and patios needs to be changed on how the building department perceives them. He does not want to include the patio material as a condition and feels the applicant can deal with Engineering. He will support the proposal as presented by the applicant. Ms. Tygre disagrees about patio. She noted she was on P&Z at the time when the building envelope was granted. She stated building envelopes at the time were negotiated, very much like a planned unit development (PUD). They were not voluntary building envelopes. There were many other proposals around Hallam Lake at the same time including outdoor decks, hot tubs, and exterior lighting. It became one of the reasons why the regulations were brought about. She feels the patio is a minor thing, but now that the regulations are in place, they should be followed. This proposal is a redevelopment and she feels it should be interpreted how Staff has interpreted it. She believes the applicant could get around this by making it a pervious surface. She would approve the proposal if the pervious surface was added as a condition. That would be keeping with the spirit of the regulations. Mr. Mesirow noted Mr. Neiley’s statement regarding possibly seeking an amendment to the building envelope if necessary. He believes the applicant intends to use the outside area a lot and asked Ms. Tygre how she weighs on in on this. Ms. Tygre responded once you have a hard patio as opposed to a softer surface, you are more likely to have more furniture and lighting. Mr. Johnston stated they would pursue ecological opportunities including structural grass. He is concerned about the first one to five ft next to house may require something different to prevent water seepage. He doesn’t want to over analyze it. Mr. Goode believes those types of issues would be handled with Engineering. Other commissioners agreed. Mr. Johnston stated they have not met with Engineering regarding this yet. Mr. Goode does not see this as a big issue except for outdoor lighting. He feels Engineering would handle this. Mr. Mesirow agrees with Ms. Tygre to the point that a hardscape patio will tend to have furniture and lights and other items. He feels it could be an impediment to the environment. Ms. Garrow noted there are lighting standards with the Hallam Lake area and will be subject to the zoning review at the time of the building permit. Mr. Johnston stated this is why the 45-degree slope Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning July 5, 2016 7 was set to prevent anyone from seeing anything from the bottom of the slope. Mr. Anderson noted Staff has seen the lighting plan for the proposed building, but not the landscaping. Ms. Garrow suggested to remove Section 2.1 of the resolution and replace it with the following. An at grade patio may be located outside the established building envelope as shown in Exhibit A. Pervious material is required beyond 2 ft from the edge of the house structure. Mr. Johnston suggested aligning it with the eave in place of the 2 ft portion of the statement. Mr. Goode asked if it could be described as an approximate distance. Ms. Garrow stated that could be done as well. Mr. Neiley suggested it to state as approved by Engineering. Ms. Garrow noted P&Z could describe the metric in any number of methods as suggested. She stated another option would be to state pervious material is required to the greatest extent practical. She felt this may create some issues in the building permit process. Mr. Johnston suggested using a percentage instead of a measured distance for pervious material. Ms. Garrow noted this might make more sense. Mr. Walterscheid asked if it is possible to make the recommendation stating they must follow the same restrictions that are currently in place for a rear yard setback for the Hallam Lake side. Ms. Garrow replied you would need to say all setbacks. Mr. Johnston stated they are only considering the back yard at this time and not the front patio and driveway. Mr. McNellis stated if he was designing the back yard, he would want some kind of pervious material. He does not feel the existence of a patio or type of materials used for the patio will indicate more or less light pollution. He does really want to dictate the design and would prefer to leave it alone. Ms. Garrow stated there needs to be a condition allowing the patio outside the approved building envelope. Mr. McNellis stated he is fine with that. Mr. Goode asked Ms. Garrow to repeat the last version. Ms. Garrow stated the following suggested change to the resolution. An at grade patio may be located outside the established building envelope as shown in Exhibit A. Mr. Walterscheid made a motion to approve the resolution drafted by Staff with Ms. Garrow’s suggested changes, but not getting into the semantics on materials. He feels this will be vetted in the permitting process. Ms. Garrow noted Mr. Anderson suggested modifying the first sentence of section 2.2 to state the existing retaining walls and stone steps at the rear of the property are allowed to be maintained as long as they remain in their current state. Mr. Walterscheid stated he amends his motion to include Mr. Anderson’s suggested modification. Mr. McNellis seconded the motion. Mr. Goode called for a roll call. Roll call: Ms. Tygre, no; Mr. Mesirow, no; Mr. Walterscheid, yes; Mr. McNellis, yes; and Mr. Goode, Yes; for a total of three Yes votes and two No votes (3-2). The motion passes. Mr. Goode then closed the hearing. OTHER BUSINESS None. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning July 5, 2016 8 ADJOURN Mr. Goode then adjourned the meeting. Cindy Klob City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager