HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20051101ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
Minutes November 01~ 2005
COMMENTS ............................................................................................................ 2
DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ............................................... 2
THE HOLIDAY HOUSE CONCEPTUAL PUD ..................................................... 2
LAND USE CODE AMENDMENT - EASTWOOD/SKIMMING ROAD ........... 2
LAND USE CODE MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS ................................... 4
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
Minutes November 01~ 2005
Jasmine Tygre opened the regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning
Commission in Council Chambers at 4:30pm. Members Brian Speck, Steve
Skadron, John Rowland, Ruth Kruger, Dylan Johns and Jasmine Tygre were
present. Staff in attendance were Jennifer Phelan, Chris Bendon and Sarah Oates,
Community Development and Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk.
COMMENTS
Jasmine Tygre asked when the Limelight would be coming back to P&Z. Jennifer
Phelan stated that she would email the exact date to the commission but thought
that it was in December.
Chris Bendon distributed a survey on long range planning.
DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Dylan Johns recused himself from the Land Use Code Amendment on
McSkimming Road.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
THE HOLIDAY HOUSE CONCEPTUAL PUD
Jasmine Tygre opened the continued hearing on the Holiday House conceptual
PUD. Jennifer Phelan stated the applicant requested the hearing be continued.
MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to continue the public hearing on the Holiday
House to January 3, 2006; seconded by Brain Speck. All in favor, motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
LAND USE CODE AMENDMENT - EASTWOOD/SKIMMING ROAD
Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for the Land Use Code Amendments on
Skimming Road. Sarah Oates provided proof of notice, which was published in
the newspaper and as a courtesy mailings to property owners within 300 feet.
Oates explained this was a code amendment to adjust the setback from 30 feet to
10 feet for specific lots on Eastwood Road and Skimming Lane. Oates said that
when these areas were annexed into the city in 1987 and 1988 there was a
conscious effort by staff to make sure that non-conformities were not being created
by imposing city zoning on these properties. There was a specific zone district R-
15B established for this area of town. A couple of areas were impacted by the way
that the city interpreted right-of-way dedications and how setbacks were measured
from roads that have in fact created non-conformities, which was not intentional.
2
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
Minutes November 01~ 2005
Staff wanted to bring back what was originally in mind measuring setbacks for
these areas of town. This was a staff initiated code amendment and letters were
sent to property owners on Eastwood Drive and Oates spoke to owners or
representatives on Skimming Lane; Oates received responses 6 months ago from
people in support of changing the-code. Tygre asked if these comments were
available to the commission and the public record. Oates responded that she had
the letter that she wrote to the homeowners and an email from one of the affected
property owners on Eastwood; the rest were telephone conversations.
Oates provided a story board depicting Eastwood Drive, which was accessed off of
Highway 82 and Roaring Fork Drive. Eastwood was a narrow road with lots up
the road and lots sandwiched between Eastwood and Highway 82; when the area
was annexed Eastwood was a private road. Oates said after it was annexed the
residents asked that the road become a dedicated public right-of-way so the city
could do maintenance and plowing. Oates said when that happened the setbacks
were measured from the property lines, which were on the north side of the road to
measuring to the right-of way dedication on the south side of the road. A 30-foot
piece of their property was shifted to the south, which made it difficult to re-
develop or make an addition because it no longer meets the setback requirement
and the owners needed to come in for a variance. There was bench where the
houses were built and pushed them down the hill, which causes deeper cuts and
disturbed more vegetation.
Oates said the Skimming Lane was a small dirt road off of McSkimming Road;
there were 15 feet of private road easements (private access easements) on either
side of the road. Oates said even though this was a private road (because of the
way the code is written) the measurement is taken from the edge of the access
easement rather than from the property, which is 15 feet further. This created non-
conforming houses pushing the development further down the hill with the need
for deep cuts disturbing more vegetation.
Staffrecommends approval for a 30 foot setback for the R-15B Zone District and
properties located between Eastwood Drive and Highway 82 (Lots 6-19 Eastwood
Subdivision) and properties located on the northwest portion of Skimming Lane
(Lots 8-11, Block 1 Aspen Grove Subdivision) with a 10 foot front yard setback.
Tygre asked if the slope reduction was taken into the calculations. Oates replied
that when the area was annexed the slope reduction was taken into account; the R-
15B had its own FAR schedule, which was smaller than other zone districts.
3
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
Minutes November 0I1 2005
Public Comments:
1. Donna Fischer, public, stated that she lived on the opposite side of Eastwood
Drive and said that it was not acceptable for people to build closer to the street.
Fischer spoke of the variance granted by the board of adjustment for the ability to
build a garage 5 feet from the road because the woman was elderly and there were
more variances allowed. Fischer stated concern because it was not an appropriate
spot for people to come closer to the road. Fischer emphasized that this was a
really narrow road.
2. Catherine Garland, public, stated that she lived on McSkimming Road and
was against the amendment because the road was very dangerous and narrow.
Garland stated concern for building too close to the road.
3. Peter Kelly, public, stated that he lived on McSkimming Road and asked
who generated this code amendment. Chris Bendon answered that there were quite
a few requests for that front yard setback variances and the Board of Adjustment
granted these variance requests; staff did not support the variances. Bendon said
that staff generated this amendment. Bendon said the way that the city measured
property lines was different than the way the county measured so there was a
change in the rules that affected property, which was not considered.
4. Evan Clark, public, represents several property owners on Skimming Lane
and said the setback difference was 5 feet. Clark said that this was not created by
the lot owners own actions. Clark said this was simply a difference in how the city
and county measured.
5. Dan Martineau submitted a letter in support of the code amendment.
Jasmine Tygre requested some kind of a diagram to show the amount and points of
reference. John Rowland requested a series of street sections to get a better
feeling. Tygre said that they needed a drawing to show how close the properties
would be to the actual road. Ruth Kruger requested a blow up of the portion of the
drawing to show the impacts on the street.
MOTION: Steve Skadron moved to continue the Land Use Code Amendment for
Eastwood/Skimming to November 22~a; seconded by dohn Rowland. All in favor,
motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
LAND USE CODE MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS
Jasmine Tygre opened the land use miscellaneous amendments. Notice was
provided. Jennifer Phelan stated a number of the revisions had to do with items
deleted from the code or with the new lodging overhaul language that needed to be
changed or clarified. Phelan said the staff report followed the resolution.
4
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
Minutes November 01~ 2005
Phelan said that Sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 (page 3 in the memo) had the intent to
clarify the use and role of planning documents. Phelan said the documents had to
include a mission statement of how the document will be used and if the document
is used as a policy document then it will be adopted by resolution. Guiding
policies will be adopted by ordinance.
Phelan stated that Sections 2, 3 and 4 were broken down to the powers and duties
of City Council, Planning Commission and Historic Preservation Commission.
Phelan said Section 5 was a change in the Growth Management Quota System
(GMQS); if free market residential projects were an assemblage and were in 2
different zone districts then the zone district that each portion was located in would
apply to each portion of the project.
Phelan stated that Section 6 was Miscellaneous Supplemental Regulations and how
setbacks were measured; the setbacks were measured from the boundary of the
easement or pavement. In the new language "B" added "into" and deleted "t,~
68t:lxtor4it:t~3~'.
Phelan said Sections 7, 8, 9 and 10 added language to take advantage of the
historic lot splits and dimensional requirements for R-15A and RMF.
Phelan noted Section 11 (pages 7 & 8) included clarification of the assemblage of
parcels that don't have to be contiguous for lodge projects.
Tygre noted that sometimes code amendments were passed by ordinance and
changed from the time P&Z approved. Tygre expressed the need to see what code
amendments by Ordinance have changed from the time it was reviewed by P&Z to
the Council review.
MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to continue the Miscellaneous Code Amendments
nd
to November 22 ; seconded by Dylan dohns. All in favor, motion carried.
Meeting adjoumed at 6:55 p.m.
ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
5