Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20021001ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION October 01~ 2002 COMMISSIONER, STAFF and PUBLIC COMMENTS ........................................ 2 DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ............................................... 2 MINUTES ................................................................................................................. 2 1170 RIVER DRIVE - STREAM MARGIN REVIEW, SPECIAL REVIEW, RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS VARIANCE .......................................... 3 INFILL LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS ........................................................ 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION October 01, 2002 Jasmine Tygre opened the regular Planning and Zoning meeting at 4:35 p.m. in Sister Cities Meeting with Jack Johnson, Bert Myrin, Ron Erickson, Eric Cohen and Ruth Kruger present. Roger Haneman arrived at 5:25 plm. Dylan Johns was excused. Staff in attendance were: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Joyce Ohlson, Chris Bendon, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMISSIONER, STAFF and PUBLIC COMMENTS Ruth Kruger asked that the Pines Lodge project/demolition be stopped because it was now entirely knocked down; she stated that the project flies in the face of all of the hard work that the commissions do with land use of the city. Joyce Ohlson replied that Community Development was tracking it; Stephen Kanipe would be the Building Official that would review the permit for violatiOn. Ohlson stated that as soon as there was the technical inspectors report available, it would be provided. Kruger asked Joyce to look at the Four Peaks plan because the employee housing lot was now being marketed as free-market. Ohlson replied that an application just came to Community Development for Lot 2 for a duplex and free-market house instead of the employee housing with a cash-in-lieu; it would' come before P&Z. Ron Erickson asked for a copy of the executed ski easement for the Four Peaks Aspen Mountain trail. Erickson asked why the sidewalk in front of Adam Walton's house was without the open green space. David Hoefer replied that he would have to have an encroachment license. Joyce Ohlson replied that she would have it checked out. Eric Cohen asked if the Ajax Tow truck parking on the encroachment was being looked into. Jackie Lothian replied that engineering was looking into it. Bert Myrin asked about the McStorlies sign; he stated that it was extremely large. ©hlson stated that Sarah Oates would look into it. Myrin asked again about the television in the Four Peaks Office; he said that it was clearly used to convey information. Jack Johnson had a question on the Affordable Housing program. Staffreferred him to the Housing Board or the Housing Office. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Roger Haneman excused himself from the 1170 Rive Drive h~aring. MINUTES MOTION: Bert Myrin moved to approve the minu~es from September 17, 2002; seconded by Eric Cohen. APPROVED 6-0. 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION October 01~ 2002 PUBLIC HEARING: 1170 RIVER DRIVE - STREAM MARGIN REVIEW, SPECIAL REVIEW~ RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS VARIANCE Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for 1170 River Drive. David Hoefer stated that the affidavit had been provided. Scott Woodford Stated that the' applicants were Bill and Joyce Gruenberg represented by Randy Wedum, architect. Wood£ord explained that the request was for a Stream Margin Review, appeal of the Top o£ Slope determination and Residential Design Standard Variances for two non-orthogonal windows. Woodford said that there was a 2060 square foot addition to the single family dwelling, which included a 2-car garage, mudroom, shop, entry and a remodel to the second floor o£the existing house. The existing house was located partially in the flood plane; the addition was outside the flood plane and the top of slope boundary. Woodford stated that there would be 3 trees removed and 6 relocated. The non- orthogonal windows were not in anyone's view plane. No public comments. MOTION: Eric Cohen moved to approve P&Z ReSolution #27, series 2002 with the following conditions: 1.) No vegetation shall be removed or damaged or slope grade changes (cut or fill) made outside of the specifically defined building envelope designated on the approved site plan (dated July 5, 2002 and revised August 17, 2002). The building envelope shall be barricaded prior to issuance of any demolition, excavation or building permits and the barricade shall remain in place until the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy; and 2.)Prior to issuance of building permit, the following shall be required: a.) A lighting plan shall be submitted with the building permit application. All exterior lighting shall be low and downcast with no light(s) directed toward the river or located down the slope and shall be in compliance with section 26.575.150. b.)A drainage plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for review prior to construction. The proposed development shall not pollute or interfere with the natural changes of the river, stream or other tributary including erosion and/or sedimentation during construction and a silt fence shall be placed along the riverside of the building envelope, c.) The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits from the Building Department as required, d.) The applicant shall pay a Park Dedication Impact Fee for any additional bedrooms that are added, e.) The applic~int shall obtain a floodplain development permit from the City of Aspen Engineering Department. f.) A financial guarantee shall be provided to the City in an amount determined by the Community Development Engineer for the ditch proposed to be relocated, that applies to the developer and his heirs, successors and assigns that ensures that the flood carrying capacity on the parcel is not diminished as a result of the relocation. The bond shall be released upon completion of the ditch relocation and satisfaction of the Community Development Engineer. g.) The site plan submitted with the building permit application shall clearly delineate the top of slope, h.) Confirmation from the Army Corps of Engineers that no wetlands permits shah be required for this application, i.)In accordance with documented offer from the applicant (letter from Wedum Architect & Associates dated September 23, 3 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION October 01, 2002 2002), a Fisherman's Easement shall be dedicated to the City in aform approved by the City Attorney for the area of the lot from the Roaring Fork River up to the edge of bank, as shown on the approved sRe plan. j.) A letter of approval from the Homeowners Association and/or the ditch company with jurisdiction over the Taggart Ditch stating approval of the plan to relocate the ditch on this property. 2.) A written notice shall be given to the Colorado Water Conservation Board prior to any aReration or relocation of a watercourse, and a copy of said notice shall be submitted to the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Community Development Department. 3.The landscape plan shall limit new plantings (including trees, shrubs, flowers, and grasses) outside of the designated building envelope on the riverside to native riparian vegetation. 40If the fiewly enclosed area plus the area of the exiting structure exceeds 5,000 square feet, the newly enclosed area may be required to be sprinlded. The plans will be reviewed with the Fir~ Marshall at the time of application for a building permit. Ruth Kruger seconded. Roll call vote: Myrin, yes; Johnson, yes; Erickson, yes; Kruger, yes; Cohen, yes; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 6-0. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (09/03/02, 09/17/02, 9/24/02): INFILL LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing on the Infill Land Use Code Amendments. Chris Bendon stated that parking was one of the most difficult planning issues. Bendon said that parking requirements vary diversely and the infill group suggested making the parking requirements the same across the board. Off-site, remote, payment-in-lieu, changing residential requirements to none or one space per unit and lowering lodge requirements to .5 spaces per unit were some of the suggestions. Staff recommended lowering to one space per unit; there was provision for review through HPC and/or P&Z. $30,000.00 was suggested for the payment-in-lieu fee; the current fee was $15,000.00 per space. P&Z would be the appropriate review board on parking issues. Bendon said that the re-development of commercial space as well as lodge required mitigation only on the additional square footage, not what existed no matter if mitigated prior to the re-development. Bendon said that there was a difference between the needs for retail and office for the ratio of parking spaces. Garret Brandt, public, asked about the places that do not require parking mitigation. Bendon answered that Portland had some requirements, which made surface parking lots illegal. Joyce Ohlson said that it was not'uncommon for communities to require public parking as community services. Brandt asked the number of sites and spaces that would be available for remote parking. Bendon replied that it was a city/county study from projects either publicly owned or privately owned (25 sites in all) but did not go into all the private sites so that capacity numbers were not available. Brandt voiced concern over the costs of the 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION October 01, 2002 parking spaces for 13,000 square feet of commercial space; he said that his costs for the rents would burden the leaseholders. Brandt said that the paid cash-in-lieu parking mitigation terms af 7 years was too long to wait; he suggested 5 years because the cash generated from those parking lots wOUld be used for the city projects. Tygrc stated that the cash-in-lieu went into a general fund for public amenities and the benefits may not be seen immediately. Bendon said that there were procedural levels for thc review process. The commissioners commented that anything that was historical ShOuld go to HPC; everything else and downtown should be the purview of P&Z. The commission discussed the procedures, mitigation, process, site-specific traffic issues, the criteria, cash-in-lieu, different zone districts, and possibly waive thc mitigation. Procedure (special review) was voted for by 4 P&Z Members; no procedure or developer's choice (on-site, off-site or cash-in-lieu) was preferred by 4 Members. 3 Members felt the cash mitigation was too low, 1 too high, 2 just right and 1 Member had no opinion. MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to continue the public hearing on the Infill Land Use Code Amendments to October 8, 2002; seconded by Roger Haneman. APPROVED 7-0. The commission adjourned at 7:05 p.m. /~cie Lothian,-Deputy City Clerk 5