Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20170404Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission April 4, 2017 04/04/2017 Page 1 Mr. Skippy Mesirow, Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order for April 4th, 2017 at 4:30 PM with members Jasmine Tygre, Keith Goode, Spencer McKnight, and Skippy Mesirow. Mr. Mesirow noted Rally Dupps would be arriving a bit late to the meeting. Rally Dupps arrived at 4:34pm. Kelly McNicholas Kury, Jesse Morris and Ryan Walterscheid Rally Dupps were not present for the meeting. Also present from City staff; James R True, Jennifer Phelan, Justin Barker and Reilly Thimons. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Mr. Goode noted the Parks and Recreation Department did an amazing job with the park after the World Cup events. STAFF COMMENTS: Mr. Barker noted there are new hard copies of the land use code available for each board member if they wish to have one. He stated it is also online. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments. MINUTES There were no draft minutes. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST There were no declarations. PUBLIC HEARINGS Public Hearing – 54 Shady Ln – Stream Margin Review and Dimensional Variance Request Mr. Mesirow asked if there were any conflicts of interest to be noted to which there were none. Mr. Mesirow asked if the affidavits of notice had been reviewed. Mr. True replied he reviewed the notices and found them sufficient. Mr. Mesirow opened the hearing and turned the floor over to staff. Ms. Reilly Thimons, Planner Technician, displayed a vicinity map and noted the project is located along Red Mountain Rd and Shady Ln. She also pointed out the location of Hunter Creek, the existing structure Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission April 4, 2017 04/04/2017 Page 2 and the property boundary. She stated the property is zoned Low Density Residential (R-30) and is AspenModern eligible. The existing structure was built in 1971 along the Hunter Creek Stream Margin. A carport currently exists along Red Mountain Rd which is the impetus for the dimensional variance request. The applicant originally requested a stream margin review residential design variation and a setback variance. Upon review of the application by staff, it was discovered the residential design variation was not applicable so the hearing will only cover the stream margin review and dimensional variance requests. She then reviewed the purpose of stream margins and the variance standards. Ms. Thimons then displayed photographs of the existing conditions of the current structure describing the current residential building consisting of three separate buildings connected by a patio and area ways. Another picture was provided of the existing structure and another displayed a view of the property from Red Mountain Rd. She listed a few items unique to the site: 1. The tree inventory is quite dense consisting of both deciduous and coniferous trees. 2. The grading of the site is steep in some areas of the lot. She noted because the adjacent property owner owns the portion along the southern end of the lot before it meets the road, the property currently does not have access to Shady Ln. Ms. Thimons stated the existing structure infringes upon the top of bank. She pointed this out on a site map as the orange line as shown on page three (3) of the packet. The top of slope setback was shown in blue on the same map. She noted these were agreed upon in June of 2016 after meeting with the Engineering Department. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing structure and build a new single-family residence. The new residence will be moved outside the top of slope and setback areas. Several trees will be removed and significant landscaping will be done as a result of the new residence. Ms. Thimons then discussed the stream margin review. She noted the applicant has met all the review standards. They are not proposing to change the grade or damage any vegetation along the Hunter Creek stream margin area or interfere or pollute the natural water course. She added any notices or guarantees necessary will be addressed during the building permit process. She stated the proposal also meets the progressive height requirement. In regards to the dimensional variance request, Ms. Thimons stated the applicant has shown staff three different renderings in the application, of which two alternatives have been discussed with the Engineering Department. The alternatives are described below. Alternative A • Sloped drive entering from existing carport location which would infringe on the stream margin and top of slope as it ‘S’ curves down to the southern set back line where a garage would be built. • This option would require the most amount of landscaping and removing of approximately 60 trees. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission April 4, 2017 04/04/2017 Page 3 • Engineering and Parks could not support this alternative due to the most significant impact of the three options in terms of landscaping and encroaching towards the stream margin. Alternative B • Elevated tiered driveway and auto-court accessed from Red Mountain Rd and leads into the second story of the residence with the garage (approximately 76 ft wide). This would require a dimensional variance along the driveway to exceed 24 in within the setback and would also require the removal of approximately 60 trees. • Engineering and Parks do not feel this alternative is not appropriate for this site because it would also require extensive landscaping and regrading. • This option infringes toward the stream margin as well. • Applicant has proposed new trees and additional plantings to partially remedy the removal of mature trees. Preferred Alternative • Elevated bridge and auto-court accessed from Red Mountain Rd and crosses to the second story of the residence. • A dimensional variance would still be required to allow the driveway to exceed 24 in within the setback. • This option would require the least amount of tree removal and landscaping. Staff estimates about 20 trees would be removed for the driveway. • Engineering and Parks support this option in that it shifts of the house away from the stream margin and has the least impact on the riparian area along the stream margin. She noted Mr. Ben Carlson, City of Aspen Forester, was present if anyone had additional questions. She provided a view of the site plan for the preferred option and photos of the proposed elevated driveway. The applicant has requested the dimensional variance specifically for the driveway to project higher than 24 in into the setback. The underlying zoning has a 25 ft setback from the front yard or street facing façade. Staff was not able to agree with the variance causing a hardship on the applicant due to the existing carport which has been in use since the late 1980’s. Therefore, staff recommends denial of the dimensional variance. She pointed out the packet includes two draft resolutions. The first recommends approval of the stream margin and denial of the dimensional variance request. The second draft recommends approval of both the stream margin and the dimensional variance request. Mr. Mesirow asked for questions of staff. Mr. Dupps asked by how much would the driveway exceed the 24 in limit. Ms. Thimons asked Mr. Johnston to respond, who stated it is about 15 ft from the road to the bottom of the site so it would exceed it by 13 ft on average. Mr. McKnight asked Mr. Ben Carlson to expand on the notes in the packet. Mr. Carlson described the trees regulated by their type and size. Specifically, he is concerned for the mature cottonwood trees along the right of way, along the stream margin and the perimeter of the property. In regards to the Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission April 4, 2017 04/04/2017 Page 4 code, every deciduous tree over 6 in in diameter and evergreen tree over 4 in in diameter on the site are regulated by ordinance. In order to remove them, you need a permit from the City Forester and Parks Department. There are a couple of cottonwood trees that are 30 plus inches in diameter which the City would prefer they be preserved as they provide stability to the slope as well as enhance environmental and aesthetic needs of the property. Mr. Mesirow asked Mr. Carlson for the bridge option, how many trees were of concern as compared to the other alternatives. Mr. Carlson believed there were fewer in this option as compared to the other two alternatives. Mr. Mesirow asked given the third option does not meet the criteria according to staff, what was their suggestion for an egress to the house. Ms. Thimons replied staff suggested keeping the existing carport. Ms. Phelan added this would be reasonable use of the property and the noted the commission might determine there is some unnecessary hardship by removing all the trees and unique conditions to the parcel. Mr. Mesirow asked if the existing carport would be left, how would they get from the carport to the structure. Ms. Thimons replied there is an existing path that may be used, but would need to slightly reconfigured to access the new house. Mr. Mesirow then turned the floor over to the applicant. Mr. Alan Richman, Alan Richman Planning Services, introduced himself and then introduced the applicant’s representatives including Mr. David Johnston, David Johnston Architects and Mr. Rick Neiley, Neiley & Alder. Mr. Richman stated they are comfortable with the conditions of approval listed by staff in the draft resolutions. He stated they wanted to focus on the front yard setback issue and believe the application meets the standards of the land use code for a variance to be granted by the planning commission. He then discussed the stream margin noting there are three factors: 1) Stream margin – The mapped the floodplain and top of bank to ensure they were outside these environmental features. 2) Driveway – They wanted to see if they could appropriately provide vehicular access to the property. 3) Dense tree canopy on the property – The applicant also wants to preserve it as well. He noted the property had previously received stream margin approval from P&Z in 2004 for some additions. He stated as they worked with the Engineering department on the map of the floodplain and top of bank, it was determined a portion of the house is within the stream margin on two aspects. It falls within the 15 ft margin and the 45-degree angle. The proposed site plan fully complies with the stream margin review standards. Many applicants would look for ways to retain this footprint in order to remain close to the stream. The applicant proposes shifting the footprint towards the center of the property. Once they decided where to place the new house, they looked at how to access the house and the unusual challenges. The first issue is there is only one way to get in to the property. He pointed out on a Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission April 4, 2017 04/04/2017 Page 5 map the location of Shady Ln in relation to the applicant’s property noting the applicant does not own the land next to Shady Ln. He stated there is no ability to bring the driveway across Hunter Creek and no ability to bring a driveway in from the Rio Grande Trail side. The only option is from Red Mountain Rd. He stated the second challenge for access is the approximately 15 ft drop between Red Mountain Rd and the location of the proposed house. He pointed on a map where the existing carport exists and stated currently you need to drive head-in to the carport and to leave you need to back out onto Red Mountain Rd which he believes is not a safe situation. He stated both they and the Engineering department feels it should be corrected. He added the current carport directly conflicts with the City’s Residential Design Standards (RDS) which stated the garage should not be prominent from the street. In 1987, Pitkin County was looking to widen and elevate Red Mountain Rd. The prior owners of this property conveyed to the County an area of land measuring about 4,000 sf of land at no cost and the County built the carport platform and a set of stairs down towards the house. The applicant team has determined the least impact to the property to resolve the safety issues and provide access to the home is an elevated driveway which requires a variance from P&Z to be allowed. Mr. Richman then reviewed how the application meets the standards outlined by staff earlier in the hearing: • Provides the least environmentally impactful solution to access the property. • Promotes public safety by eliminating the backing out configuration and providing access for an ambulance or other emergency vehicles. • Provides access with persons with disabilities – a picture was shown of the existing stairs and path. • Provides a new design is consistent with RDS as the garage will point away from the street. Mr. Richman believes the application complies with the hardship criteria and discussed the three tests to be met. 1. Not self-imposed 2. Result of the unique physical circumstances on the property 3. Must deny something commonly enjoyed by others in the neighborhood He continued stating the hardship is caused by the 15ft topographic change between the road and the bottom of the property and the fact the other three sides of the property cannot be used for access. Mr. David Johnston spoke to the location of the proposed home. The driveway is slated to be 16 ft wide. They’ve studied minimum radiuses to get in and out of the garage to ensure vehicles can pull forward into the garage and back out before pulling forward on to Red Mountain Rd. He then discussed the home structure noting they are trying to leave as many trees as possible on the south side. He provided concept drawings of the structure and described the elements of the elevated driveway. He discussed how the design of the driveway and small footprint for the house will aid the drainage on the property. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission April 4, 2017 04/04/2017 Page 6 He noted because they pushed the house back for the stream margin, an additional 25 to 30 ft of distance between the existing carport and the home making it more challenging to connect to the proposed home and improve the existing pathway. Mr. McKnight asked if there were any pictures or renderings of what the new entrance would look like with the existing path. Mr. Johnston responded he did not, only those of the proposed elevated option. He noted some of the trees were purposefully left off the rendering to allow the structure to be visible. He pointed out where some of the larger trees are located on the lot. He stated Engineering wanted the access to be located a minimum of 25 ft from Shady Ln and the current design places the access closer to 40 ft away to allow the elevated access to be placed away from trees and in a safe place. Ms. Tygre asked if the carport would go away if the other access was built and Mr. Johnston replied it would be removed. Mr. Rick Neiley feels they have come up with an innovative design. He feels they are at odds with City Staff regarding the elevated driveway. He feels the design is innovative and is the least impactful of the site and trees. He is troubled by staff’s conclusion in their memo stating it is an inconvenience rather than a condition precluding their ability to successfully develop the site with the existing carport. He does not feel it is a question there could be some successful development based on a design scheme, but a question if there is a hardship associated with the site not caused by the applicant’s conduct and it deprives the applicant of an amenity commonly enjoyed. He feels the hardship of the property is more than an inconvenience. Mr. Dupps asked staff to respond to the three hardships identified by Mr. Richman. Ms. Phelan replied P&Z may determine there are special circumstances exist. She noted comments from other departments have been made available. She feels there is an existing condition that provides reasonable use of the property currently for parking and not necessarily convenient access to the house. She also noted the Parks department is concerned about the tree canopy which is important to the city overall. She stated the board has the latitude to determine those are strong enough to create special conditions on the property. Mr. McKnight asked how many trees would be removed. Mr. Richman replied the application speaks to about two dozen trees for the preferred option vs. about five dozen trees for options A or B. He added the landscape plan also replaces the trees to be removed. Mr. Mesirow then opened for public comment. Mr. Chris Bryan, attorney for Garfield & Hecht, stated he is in attendance representing the homeowners to the south at 17 Shady Ln. He stated the homeowners feel they will be the most impacted by whatever the commission decides. They have concerns about the redevelopment itself. It will cause large scale, multi-year construction activity right off Red Mountain Rd. The applicant has not asked homeowner for access from Shady Ln which is a private road. The feel it is interesting they have an address of 54 Shady Ln when they don’t have access from Shady Ln which they feel was a mistake made in the past. They also have had issues preserving the tree canopy. About two years ago, the LLC owner of the applicant’s property entered the homeowner’s property unauthorized and cut trees down using Aspen Tree Service. It is his understanding the LLC membership has since changed. Therefore, his clients are reluctant to sign off on a large-scale tree removal and building an elevated driveway to the home. Mr. Bryan believes P&Z should look at what is really necessary and feels the existing carport is a self-imposed aspect of the property. In regards to the safety issues, he is not aware of accidents or public safety concerns. He feels they could simply back into the carport. He would like the board to consider another alternative not Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission April 4, 2017 04/04/2017 Page 7 included in the application which is to keep it status quo with the existing house and carport, creating an ADA ramp from the carport. He hears the applicant would prefer not to have to walk an additional 25 ft to their home, but does not feel it is a hardship. His client feels staff’s opinion is correct. He pointed out on p. 5 of staff’s memo stating the proposed design would infringe on the southern property setback. His client feels the property can be enjoyed as is without the proposed structures. Ms. Thimons wanted to clarify in regards to the infringement on the southern property’s setback, it was only for the sloped, curved driveway access alternative (Alternative B). She added staff, Engineering and Parks do not support this alternative. She reiterated the preferred alternative does not infringe on the setback. Mr. Johnston asked if he could respond to Mr. Bryan’s statements. He stated their goal was to not have access off Shady Ln as to not disturb the neighbor. Mr. Mesirow then closed the public comment portion of the hearing and opened for commissioner discussion. Mr. McKnight feels the stream margin review is straight forward. He is not sure the access could be defined as a hardship but feels they have a right to have a driveway with the property. He does not feel safety is an issue. The biggest issue for him is the removal of two dozen trees and is not sure what that means but will listen to staff and the Parks department. Mr. Mesirow assumed the board is okay with the stream margin review. He feels the site constraint is unique to the property and asked the others for their thoughts. Ms. Tygre stated her concern is with the hardship issue because the applicant bought the property as is. The access has not changed since they purchased the property. To state the access is not acceptable and therefore a hardship does not seem to follow the code precisely to her. She feels in some way the proposed solution is much better, especially if the Engineering department has stated it is better. She cannot find the justification in the code itself to allow the variation for the construction of the elevated driveway. She would love to see the applicant come up with a better solution. Mr. Goode agreed with her comments. Mr. McKnight stated he thought the same thing, but just because they purchased the property as is, they would not necessarily obtain the variance prior to purchasing it. Ms. Tygre feels she is stuck on the definition of hardship. Mr. Mesirow believes the access could cause a hardship as it relates to other homes and their access. Mr. Richman read the code language regarding variances. Mr. Dupps stated he feels it is a threshold issue and not clear. He noted the house as it currently exists, is in the wrong location and believes Red Mountain Rd is very busy causing a hazardous situation. If he considers this, he is in favor of granting the variance. Mr. Neiley asked to respond to Ms. Tygre’s comments regarding purchasing the property with hardships. He stated the case law in Colorado is clear noting if you buy a piece of property with a hardship, it does not preclude you from being able to seek a variance. The hardship is incidental to the nature of the property itself and not a basis for denying a request for a variance. Mr. True responded Mr. Neiley’s statement was correct in that you may purchase something knowing there was a hardship but the question is have you done something to create the hardship. He feels this is set forth in the code and the Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission April 4, 2017 04/04/2017 Page 8 board can still make the determination if this is in fact a hardship vs an inconvenience and is factual determination for the board. Mr. Mesirow asked Ms. Tygre if this changes her decision to which she replied yes, but she would still like to see a different solution. Mr. Richman asked them to consider the situation when an ambulance needs to access the home, not just personal vehicles. Mr. Goode asked about a fire truck accessing the property. Mr. Johnston replied the structure is within 150 ft of the road. They are designing the bridge such that it could handle a firetruck pulling into the driveway. Mr. Goode moved to approve Resolution 8, Series 2017 to approve the stream margin review and the variance request. The motion was seconded by Mr. McKnight. Mr. Mesirow then requested the roll call vote. Mr. Goode, yes; Mr. McKnight, yes; Mr. Dupps, yes; Ms. Tygre, yes; and Mr. Mesirow, yes for a total of five Yes votes to zero No votes (5-0), motion carried. Mr. Mesirow then closed the hearing. OTHER BUSINESS None. Mr. Mesirow then closed the meeting at 5:41 pm. Cindy Klob City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager