Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20071204ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 04, 2007 COMMENTS :........................................................................................................... 2 DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST ................................................. 3 300 NICHOLAS LANE PUD ................................................................................... 3 1395 SNOWBUNNY LANE -RESIDENTIAL DESIGN VARIANCE ................ 3 1 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 04, 2007 Dylan Johns opened the regular meeting of the Planning & Zoning Commission in Sister Cities at 4:30. Commissioners Cliff Weiss, Stan Gibbs, Dina Bloom, LJ Erspamer, Brian Speck and Dylan Johns were present; excused were Michael Wampler and Jim DeFrancia. Staff in attendance: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development; Jim True, Special Counsel; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMENTS: Cliff Weiss said the housing board rejected the proposal for cash-in-lieu on the La Cocina basement increase in commercial space'and wanted to let the housing board know that he supported increasing, even doubling, cash-in-lieu so that they do not have to reject things that are already in their code. Jim True said that it was his understanding that housing was going to raise discussion with the commissioners and council increasing cash-in-lieu. Jennifer Phelan stated Community Development had a staff update on Monday; there has been discussion about increasing the fees. MOTION: Cliff Weiss moved to send a letter to the Housing Board that we support dramatic increases in all categories of cash-in-lieu. No second, motion dies. LJ Erspamer said that he was not opposed to it but that was not the P&Z agenda; as an individual he would encourage that but not as a commission. Stan Gibbs said that he wouldn't feel comfortable voting on something tonight but would consider the issues especially if they knew where council and housing were going then P&Z could weigh in. Gibbs said that he was not a fan of cash-in-lieu and would rather not encourage it, he would rather go the other way but that was just his personal opinion. LJ Erspamer said that this was matter of less than one employee and he agreed that the cash-in-lieu was too cheap. Weiss stated that the housing board rejected it because they did not want the cash- in-lieu and it didn't matter whether it was category 3 or 4; they wanted the applicant to build on site. Jennifer Phelan said that she would do a follow up. Jennifer Phelan reminded the members that at Spm Thursday at the Wheeler was the Boards and Commissions thank you party to volunteers. Jim True stated that on issues of quorum it takes four members for a quorum; you can proceed with four and then a majority of at least three votes was needed to pass an item. A tie is considered no action and you have to take some action at some point. If you have four people and someone disqualifies him or herself or leaves the meeting will not defeat the quorum. Once the quorum is established then three commissioners may proceed but all three would require an affirmative action would require all three votes; a two to one vote is deemed no action. 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 04, 2007 DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST LJ Erspamer said that he knew the applicant on Snowbunny Lane but did not have an issue with it. Cliff Weiss stated that he lived on Snowbunny but did not receive a notice. Dylan Johns and LJ Erspamer stated conflicts of interest on the 300 Nicholas Lane project. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: 300 NICHOLAS LANE PUD Brain Speck opened the public hearing on 300 Nicholas Lane. Jennifer Phelan stated that after doing more research on the property it was found that there was a covenant on the property and that needed to get cleaned up before the hearing can be held. Phelan said the date for continuance was April 15`h; there was now an open agenda for December 18`h; the commission decided to cancel the 12/18 meeting. Jim True said that there is an affordable housing deed restriction for the entire parcel. Since this application is requesting two free market components to it staff has recommended the matter be continued until the applicant either can establish evidence that the restriction has been previously removed can get it lifted by the county commissioners or get permission from the county commissioners to proceed with the application. Glenn Horn said that Jim summarized it fairly well; they had a choice of proceeding through this land use review addressing standards raised by the planning staff that there needs to be adequate community benefit to amend a PUD or they can proceed to the county commissioners. His client recognized the position of the city to require commissioner action first. MOTION: Brian Speck move to continue 300 Nicholas Lane to April I5, 2008; seconded by Stan Gibbs. All in favor, APPROVED. PUBLIC HEARING: 1395 SNOWBUNNY LANE -RESIDENTIAL DESIGN VARIANCE Dylan Johns opened the public hearing for the fence residential design variance. Proof of notice was provided and special counsel, Jim True, stated the notice was good. ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 04, 2007 Jennifer Phelan said this was an application for a variance from the city's residential design standards; for the variance for the height of a fence. The property is located at 1395 Snowbunny Lane and is considered a comer lot because it has street frontage along Snowbunny Lane and Cemetery Lane. The specific request is to allow a portion of the fence being proposed along Cemetery Lane to be six feet tall; currently there were requirements in the code for a corner lot to have a visual site triangle; the applicant shows the site plan in pink to meet the visual site triangle in the height of the fence. Phelan said the six foot fence along the blue portion (along Cemetery Lane) and a requirement in the code in residential design standards that a front yard fence not be higher than forty-two (42) inches; the city considers that the property has two front yards. Phelan said that in general terms she called it a primary and secondary front yard; the code allows the secondary front yard a reduced setback. Phelan said that the variance that they are asking for was to allow for a privacy fence that was six (6) feet high and the residential design standards allows for forty-two (42) inches. The property owners proposed their front yard on Snowbunny Lane and the secondary front yard would be on Cemetery Lane. Staff recommended against the variance to build the higher fence along Cemetery Lane; staff doesn't think that a six foot fence offered a better design solution given the context of the area. Phelan stated there were photos of the area showing the context and existing fences that have been there for a long time and current developments would not be allowed on a corner lot to provide a six foot fence along Cemetery Lane. Phelan said that the prohibition of higher fences when there was street frontage was to create a better pedestrian environment along that secondary front yard, which is Cemetery Lane. Staff does not feel that a six foot fence is a good design solution or the benefit to the streetscape. Phelan distributed letters received after the packet was distributed from Geraldine Whitman and Denison Levy (not in favor of the variance). Michael Hoffman was the attorney for the property owners, AV Properties, LLC and Cathy Markle was the landscape architect for the project. Hoffman said that his understanding of the objection raised in the letters had to do with the trees that were recently installed within the lot; they will change the location of those trees to improve the sight lines coming out of Snowbunny Lane. Hoffinan said that they have to demonstrate one of two things in order to justify the variance being granted; one is that this is a good design solution or is consistent with the neighborhood or there are special characteristics of this site which justify the granting of the variance. Hoffman said the first time they came for a design variance was when they were sighting the structures on the lot; this was a decision made by the community development director. Hoffman said residential design Standard 26.410.020d said the structure itself has to be on a corner lot parallel to 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 04, 2007 each of the corners or the cord of the curve, if it is on a curve, and the community development director granted approval for a variance from that standard requiring them to treat Snowbunny Lane on the street on which the structure was to be orientated and the reason for that was the angle at which Snowbunny and Cemetery meet, it was forty-seven (47) degrees. Hoffman said that in their view they already meet that second standard, which should allow P&Z to grant the variance. Cathy Markle said that they were granted a variance to place the frontage of the building on Snowbunny Lane; the addresses of the property were 1395 and 1397 Snowbunny Lane. Markle noted the property line was almost contiguous with the edge of pavement existing on Cemetery Lane today; the area that the trees were planted was not city right-of--way but property owned by this parcel. Markle said they presented a landscape plan to the city in May 2006 with the building permit plans and the city approved the plan after a series of mitigation requirements in removing the trees that had originally been on the lot. Markle said that she met with Chris Foreman and Brian Flynn from the Parks Department this fall to review the tree locations along the Cemetery Lane frontage and along the corner; they eliminated several trees at the city's request along there because of concern about shading issues along Cemetery Lane. Markle said that she did not locate the thirty foot area because it was unclear to her from where in the intersection you. measure thirty feet and utilized a site map to indicate the thirty foot sight lines. There is an existing pinion tree in the right-of--way, which has been pruned up to continue the sight line. Markle said the intent of the residential design standards from the code was to preserve a public and pedestrian experience and create transitional areas from public spaces to private spaces; Section 26.410.050 of the code refers to the height offences that are applicable to the fronts of houses not to the back yards. Section 26.410.010 neighborhood character is largely established by the relationship between the front and the street that they face; the area between the street and the front door of the home is a transition between the public realm and the private life of the dwelling. Markle said that there were no fences proposed in the front of the property and noted the backyard was created by the sighting of the house; she utilized photos to show the views looking out from the backyard across Cemetery Lane and you will see some six foot fence posts so that you can see the impact from the backyard looking across Cemetery Lane and from the side yard looking across Cemetery Lane. Markle said the Planning Commission may grant the variance if the applicant demonstrates that they are providing an appropriate design considering the context in which the development is proposed and the immediate neighborhood setting. 5 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 04, 2007 Markle utilized a map to show Highway 82, Cemetery Lane and Snowbunny Lane coming out onto Cemetery Lane in two places. Markle noted all the properties in the area with six foot fences and the adjacent lots along Cemetery Lane have six foot fences; they feel that the six foot fences demonstrate that is the character of the neighborhood. Markle stated the pedestrian access was relocated on the west side of Cemetery Lane and was not put on the east side of Cemetery Lane; their property line was now touching the edge of the Cemetery Lane pavement, there was no right-of--way to construct a sidewalk for the public to use. Markle said that they have met the criteria for P&Z to approve a variance and the design and location of the fence was compatible with the neighborhood considering the context of the neighborhood; they believe that they have demonstrated reasons of fairness due to unusual site specific constraints with the Snowbunny frontage. Dylan Johns said that they talked about having a site constraint but they applied for an administrative variance because of the lot configuration given the footprint of the building that there was a site constraint that would turn that space unusable. Michael Hoffman said that he was unsure who initiated that variance but it was explained to him that the city required making Snowbunny the street to which the house addresses; he has not spoken to the architect. Cathy Markle stated that Snowbunny was longer than the Cemetery Lane side of this lot and the city had concerns about traffic entering onto Cemetery Lane from more private driveways. Cliff Weiss said that his teenager can't make it out that side of Snowbunny and a lot of it has to do with the house across the street, which you can't see down Cemetery Lane towards Red Mountain Road. Weiss asked what were they before P&Z prior. Hoffman replied they haven't been before P&Z prior. Weiss asked what the screen was setback into the back yard. Gary Moore, the contractor on the project, responded that was a stone and wood wall that separates the two units with an outdoor fireplace in it and a planned water feature. Markle said the two units share a common wall and they were condominiumized accepting horizontal plane so the patios were contiguous and if there wasn't something dividing them they would be sharing supper. Stan Gibbs asked staff if they agreed with the way that thirty feet was measured. Phelan quoted the code "corner lots no fence, retaining wall or similar object shall be erected or maintained which obstructs the traffic vision nor on corner lots shall any fence, retaining wall or similar obstruction be erected or maintained which exceeds a height of forty-two inches measured from street grade within thirty feet from the paved or unpaved roadway". Phelan said the public right-of--way would 6 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 04, 2007 be the paved or unpaved right-of--way to the property line. Phelan asked where the applicant determined the line. Hoffman stated they would work with staff to find the appropriate distance to maintain the forty-two inch fence. Weiss said that they were off the comer of that house with the lower posts. Moore said the lower posts extend farther back than the pink line. Gibbs said that each of the facades was a front yard but he couldn't find that in the code; except it was implied by the setback variance that you give to the secondary front yard. Phelan replied that on a corner lot you get to pick which will be your primary front yard and that has to be the full setback distance of what your front yard setback distance. Phelan stated the secondary yard had a reduced front yard therefore implying it was also a front yard. Gibbs said this was an unusual property in the sense that the property line was right on the street. Phelan said the R-15 front yard setback was twenty-five feet and the minimum side yard was ten foot and the rear was also ten foot so the primary along Snowbunny was twenty-five feet and the secondary was two-thirds of that at sixteen feet. Weiss asked if the side yard setback was ten foot to this property. Moore replied that it was. LJ Erspamer asked where the fence was on the property line. Phelan replied that it was not on the property line, the fence was setback. Erspamer asked if public safety department was consulted on something like this. Phelan replied that they need to talk to Parks about site triangles and more depth with regard to landscaping and explain to them how important that was. Johns said it was a DOT measure that the Engineering Department usually applies not a Parks issue. Erspamer asked if all the other fences in the neighborhood were six feet or were some smaller. Markle replied the ones photographed were six feet. Johns asked if they met with Engineering about this. Markle answered that she hadn't. Moore said the only thing that he spoke to Engineering about was the location of the meter pedestals; he couldn't get an answer on placement. Moore said that the City has created some of this problem by cramming Cemetery Lane against the property lines on that side of the street. Johns asked the height of the fence that was on Cemetery Lane. Markle said the pink portion of the fence was forty-two inches and the balance was close to fifty inches along the blue line. Johns inquired about the standard for the fence that restricts planting along to forty-two inches; the diagram shows trees being in the same spot as the fence on page six of the report. Public Comments: 7 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 04, 2007 1. Mickey Spaulding said that he lived at 1360 Snowbunny and if they were all standing out there on the corner this meeting would have lasted about five minutes. You can see what the problem is Snowbunny Lane coming into Cemetery Lane is where Cemetery Lane makes a sharp right curve; this was a flagrant safety hazard in creating a head row on this corner so when this old house was torn down then they were able to see up Cemetery Lane. Spaulding said they were afraid that the city would allow this duplex to create the problem of a sight view for pulling out from Snowbunny Lane onto Cemetery Lane. Spaulding said that there were trees that blocked the views and was a public safety issue. 2. Susan Spaulding said that Mickey and their daughter drive around on Snowbunny Lane to go into town, which creates more traffic on Snowbunny that should be a totally quiet street. Spaulding said that you have to be one-third into the on-coming traffic lane to get into town. 3. Nora Berko stated that she lived on Snowbunny Lane and concurred with the safety issue. Berko said that a privacy fence has to do with scale and the problem that she saw was this project has changed scale of Snowbunny Lane. 4. Dan Furth said that he lives within three hundred feet: he was one of the neighbors, the real estate broker for the owners and has been a resident in that location for a decade. Furth said he agreed that you see what the view would be if you were a car in that intersection; the owner told him that he would take the new trees out, which were placed by the Parks Department. Furth agreed with Mickey and the others on the dangerous blind corner and it was not the owner's intent to place those trees in a dangerous location and will remove the trees. 5. Rick Nealey said that he was an interested observer but safety at that intersection should be a paramount concern. Nealey said that his kids live one block down on Cemetery Lane same side of the street and they do have a six foot fence. Nealey said for the public right-of--way to be pushed right up against this property and the impacts on the property were really significant; it seems the only way to protect a homeowner's privacy is to allow some deviation from the forty- two inch fencing and that may entail a good landscape plan and other things but it seems that you are given the ability to vary those regulations just to address this kind of situation taking into account neighborhood safety but also neighborhood impacts on the property itself. Brian Speck said he respects the staff viewpoint at the same time because of the nature of the neighborhood that the six foot fence would be appropriate if the trees were removed and the fence situated properly. 8 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 04, 2007 Cliff Weiss referred to page 2 of 3 of the memorandum first paragraph "that each of the facades was considered a front fapade under the land use code regulations"; he said that he did not find a reading that says that both yards are front yards therefore they should be allowed to have a six foot fence. Weiss felt strongly that the six foot fence should start at the corner of the house that is closest to Cemetery Lane but nothing over forty-two inches should be planted on the outside of that fence. Weiss said the one pinion tree was a problem. Stan Gibbs asked if they could ask Parks to do something. Dylan Johns said that he thought that it was Engineering; it was a CDOT requirement no matter where it is that there is a view corridor that is maintained. Gibbs stated that as part of a recommendation he would like to have a condition that a meeting take place with Parks and Engineering and safety be discussed. Gibbs said that the property was an unusual piece of property and agreed with Cliff on the fence height of forty-two inches from the side of that building to the comer of Snowbunny. Gibbs said that that corner was very dangerous and heard the concern from neighbors; that corner needs to be as open as possible. Erspamer said he was happy to see the applicant and neighbors come up with compromising ideas that would probably resolve everything. Johns said that fences have come up in this neighborhood before and the fence is appropriate in this neighborhood. Phelan suggested if the applicant was amenable to the condition of where the fence location will be six feet and landscaping for visibility that the landscape architect works with Community Development, Parks and Engineering to improvements for landscaping. The commissioners continued to discuss the location of where the fence went from forty-two inches to six feet. Johns said they could set a location where the six foot fence stopped. Hoffman said they would go with Cliff's suggestion about the fence line closest to the corner of the house marked with an "A" as part of the record. Erspamer said there should be no vegetation on that intersection until it gets to that six foot fence. Erspamer said that photograph # 1 showed two trees that could be removed and put someplace else on the property. Johns said the code said that P&Z could regulate any vegetation between the front yard and the house. Hoffman stated the concern was site lines and they were willing to do whatever they had to preserve the site lines; there could be some trees in the front yard that don't affect the site lines. Johns said something could be worded to work with engineering because they 9 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 04.2007 would be the one that were supposed to maintain the site lines. True said the code says on a corner lot no fence, retaining wall or similar object shall be erected or maintained which obstructs traffic vision. Phelan said that at the end it says that foliage shall be placed to maintain so that will not obstruct the vehicular visibility. MOTION: Cliff Weiss moved to approve Resolution #33-07, with the following amendments and/or clarifications: A fence along Cemetery Lane from Snowbunny Lane to the southern boundary of the property may be constructed. However, from Snowbunny Lane to a point designated as point "A ", neither the fence nor any shrubbery and landscaping, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.050 shall be more than forty-two (42) inches in height. From point "A" to the southern boundary of the property, the fence may not be greater than six feet in height. Point "A "shall be deemed that point on the fence line that is closest to the house. Point "A "shall be designated on a plat that is attached to the resolution of approval. Pursuant to the Land Use Code, the applicant shall not be allowed to construct or plant anything that shall obstruct the view of traffic from Snowbunny Lane. LJErspamer seconded. Roll call vote: Speck, yes; Weiss, yes; Bloom, yes; Erspamer, yes; Gibbs, yes; Johns, yes. APPROVED 6-0. Adjourned 6:40 pm. ~• - ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 10