Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20080205ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES February 5, 2008 COMMENTS :........................................................................................................... 2 DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST ................................................. 2 CODE AMENDMENT REGARDING VOTING .................................................... 2 CODE AMENDMENT REGARDING PUBLIC NOTICE ..................................... 3 1550 HOMESTAKE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN VARIANCE ................................ 5 ASPEN CLUB CONCEPTUAL SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA AND ASSOCIATED REQUESTS ................................................................................... 10 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES February 5 2008 Dylan Johns opened the regular meeting of the Planning & Zoning Commission in Sister Cities Meeting Room at 4:30 pm. Jim DeFrancia and Michael Wampler were excused. Commissioners Cliff Weiss, Stan Gibbs, Dina Bloom, LJ Erspamer, Brian Speck and Dylan Johns were present. Staff in attendance included Jim True, Special Counsel; Jennifer Phelan, Jessica Garrow, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMENTS: Jennifer Phelan requested that the planning commission meeting end at 6:30 pm so that the P&Z Members could attend the caucuses. Phelan noted there was a conference in Denver next month for members of the planning commission to attend if interested. Brian Speck attended the Telluride conference 2 years ago and expressed how much he enjoyed meeting people from other communities. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Dylan Johns said that he was conflicted on the Aspen Club. PUBLIC HEARING: CODE AMENDMENT REGARDING VOTING Dylan Johns opened the public hearing. Jim True stated this came from the attorney's office regarding a 2-2 vote, a tie vote has no action and a matter could sit in limbo in city council if all four of the council members kept their votes. True said if there was an ordinance on the table that received a 4-1 against that was considered a no action and there has to be a motion for a denial; the ordinance of denial would have to pass with at least 3 votes. True said the procedure for denial needed to be codified formally; particularly a 2-2 situation that is deemed a denial; a 1-4 vote is deemed a denial. This changes the denial to an affirmative denial. LJ Erspamer stated this was a good clarification change brought by the attorneys. MOTION: LJErspamer moved to approve Resolution 006-08 seconded by Cliff Weiss. Roll call vote: Speck, no; Weiss, yes; Bloom, yes; Erspamer, yes; Gibbs, yes; Johns, no. Approved 4-2. Discussion of the motion: Dylan Johns said that personally he did not feel that a tie vote should result in a denial; he doesn't have a problem eliminating the need for an affirmative denial of the vote. Jim True explained that was in the charter that a 2-2 vote resulted in no action; there has to be 3 affirmative votes to pass an ordinance. Johns said that at least limbo gives the applicant a chance to re-plead 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES February 5, 2008 their case rather than a denial. Cliff Weiss said that a denial doesn't mean that you can't come back with some change in the facts and re-plead your case but limbo is totally nowhere. Johns said that you have to substantively change your application and it has to be a certain period of time after you have originally submitted the initial one. Stan Gibbs asked if the process was any different given a 2-2 tie and a 3-1 denial; does 3-1 denial mean that you have to go all the way back to square one with the process or do you still get to appeal the case, which you can do with a 2-2 as well. True replied it was the same thing; this makes all of that the same a 2-2 vote is the same as a 1-3 vote or a 1-4 vote or 2-3 vote, anything that's less than 3 positive. True said that 2-2 would be deemed denied, no more action has to take place. PUBLIC HEARING: CODE AMENDMENT REGARDING PUBLIC NOTICE Dylan Johns opened the public hearing. Jim True explained that this was to clarify some notice issues that have come up and most substantive one involves the content of the notice itself. True wanted to include the contact information for the applicant, which should be on the notices that were sent out in some form better than the way it is now. That would include the contact phone number, mailing address or email address of the applicant or representative and that should be in the notice; it makes it easier if the neighbors know how to contact the owner or the representative. True said another problem was that the notice says hearing at such and such a day, time and place; often the hearing is continued and sometimes the notice stays up through the whole process and sometimes it doesn't. But after the initial hearing it means nothing and the intent was to let people know the hearing can be continued; there was a question of whether or not the notice should just stay up the entire time with a requirement for that so the notice stays up. Currently there was no requirement that the notice stays up now; it would require an affidavit at every hearing that the notice was up prior to this hearing. The final thing was the list for mailing either comes from the assessors' office or GIS, so GIS should be codified. Cliff Weiss asked if the resolution required an email address or phone number or mailing address. Jennifer Phelan replied that the address of the owner was currently on the notice but this provides more flexibility that it could be either the mailing address, the email address or phone number and gives the option of the authorized representative. Phelan said that she will recommend the applicant's representative be put on the notice. True noted this changed the notice requirement 3 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES February 5 2008 from address to mailing address or phone number or email address of either the applicant or the applicant's representative; now it was the name and address of the applicant. Weiss said that he was sensitive to the privacy side of this. True said this gave a better chance of someone being able to contact someone to talk about the project. Stan Gibbs asked if there was a difference in how the public should be informed of a continued hearing. True responded that he saw a difference because often the first hearing could be continued because the agenda was too crowded and the public shows up and the real hearing wasn't for two months; he thought the public should be notified and the posted notice has to be up before any continued hearing and the code currently does not say that. LJ Erspamer said the email address could be a problem with spam filters so email maybe should be an additional source rather than sole source. Phelan said that the other thing to consider with privacy issues was what kind of information should be out there and to what extent. Phelan said that if someone comes into the community development office to look at the application all of the contact information is there. Weiss said the point of this was to make it easier for neighbors to make contact; he asked if it was possible for the date of the hearing on the sign to be updated. True replied that could be required but that change was not in the resolution; that could be done to change the date on the notice 15 days prior to the continued hearing. Gibbs asked what if there were continuances less than that 15 day notice period. True said that was correct and that time frame could be adjusted; people that were familiar with the process know that can happen. True said that it was the person that was not familiar with the process. Dylan Johns asked why couldn't the sign have the contact information for the City be the Community Development Department for the possible future meetings. No public comments. True asked if anyone proposed a re-draft of the resolution to include a requirement that the notice stay up throughout the process. Johns said that could be handy but not that it necessarily needed to be updated to reflect every single meeting date. Gibbs agreed that it was useful and important for the public to know that an action was pending on a property. Phelan suggested having something in the timeline to cover if a sign gets stolen or lost. True said that was the case now submitting an affidavit stating the sign was posted for 15 days. Phelan said maybe the reliance was on the first posting and it was just a requirement that a notice is maintained to the best of the applicant's ability so it doesn't create any legal issues if a notice has to be replaced. True said that it could be written to the best of the ability and not necessarily require the affidavit that it has been up the entire time. Erspamer wanted to see the date of every meeting posted on the sign; it could be done with a 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES February 5, 2008 sticker and indelible marker to make it current. Weiss stated that it was the applicant's responsibility to maintain that posted sign. Johns said that the contact info would be better to be filtered once with a phone call which was better than just an email or letter in the mail. Gibbs said that these were alternatives so the applicant can choose which one they want to put on the notice. Johns said the way it was written it looked like a phone number and a mailing address or an email address. True said that was not his intention; he intended all three to be alternatives. True said that he could make it clearer to either a mailing address or an email. Weiss said that the mailing address should be a requirement and the email or phone should be an either or. Gibbs asked why they had to have a mailing address. Weiss responded that you can send an email but you don't always have a way to confirm the recipient received it. Johns said registered mail would give you that. True clarified that a mailing address would be required and either a phone number or email. Weiss said it would be an option to add the email or phone. True said it was not consistent with the way Jennifer proposed the notice requirements to be one of the three; mailing address, phone number or email. Phelan said that she would be telling staff and publications to use the mailing address. Phelan said the notice in the newspaper now says applicant and address and the proposed change would be either applicant and mailing address or applicant's representative and mailing address; in any notice the planner on the case is included with contact phone number. Weiss said this was more complex than he thought and suggested the resolution be re-submitted with the changes made to keep the sign up during all continuances and the difference for a newspaper to a posted sign. True said that he would re-draft the resolution with the language to the best of the applicant's ability. MOTION: Cliff Weiss moved to continue the public hearing on the Code Amendment for noticing Resolution #007-08 to February 19` seconded by Dina Bloom. All in favor. PUBLIC HEARING: 1550 HOMESTAKE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN VARIANCE Dylan Johns opened the public hearing for 1550 Homestake Drive. Jim True stated the notice was accepted. Jessica Garrow explained the applicant was Carole Fisher represented by Richard Neiley; the applicant requested a variance from the ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES February 5, 2008 fence standard from the residential design standards to maintain a berm that had been previously constructed. Garrow stated that a portion of this berm was located in city right-of--way so regardless of the commission's action tonight the applicant will be required to obtain aright-of--way encroachment permit from the city engineering department for that portion of the berm that is in the right-of--way and that would be in order to maintain that portion. Garrow utilized applicant exhibit 6 in the packet to delineate the property line and the setbacks and the berm. Garrow stated the portion of the berm violated the residential design standards because the standards state berms cannot be constructed in the front yard setback; because it was in that setback area was why the variance was required. Garrow noted there were two criteria to review this request; the first was that the berm provides an appropriate pattern of development given the neighborhood context or that the berm was necessary due to a site specific constraint. Garrow said that staff did not find the berm was appropriate given the context of the area. Residential Design Standards encourage that use of the yard and the home be preserved from the public realm; low fences and hedges may be used to delineate the edge of a property but is important not to close off view of the front lawn and the house. Staff thinks this berm (shown in applicant attachment 4) cuts off any view from the public realm of the house and that front yard area. Applicant attachment 5 is the aerial map and the property was outlined; it is across from the golf course. Garrow said there were possible site issues with the berm and would be part of the encroachment license from the engineering department. Staff does not feel that this variance was needed for any context reasons; further staff does not find site specific constraints. Garrow said the applicant stated the berm was necessary because of the lot's unique location across from the golf course; again all lots on the golf course deal with errant balls more than likely but they are still required to abide by the residential design standards. All of the lots by the golf course and Cemetery Lane are required to abide by the residential design standards and all areas of town. Staff does not recommend in favor of granting this variance because it does not meet the review criteria. Rick Neiley stated that he represented Carole and Jamie Fisher. Neiley said they don't agree with the staff recommendation and when you understand this property and the context of where it is and how this berm came to be there's one of two possible outcomes that they would like. This isn't a berm as it's defined by the design regulations and secondly there are site specific constraints related to this particular house and the context of what's been developed on the street in relationship to the golf course that makes this a unique situation. Neiley said the 6 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES February 5, 2008 way this berm came about was that when Carole and Jamie were building the house they removed the excavation from the foundation when the new house was placed on the backside of the lot and used it to re-contour the front yard. Neiley said at the time that this was done a certificate of occupancy was issued by the city without any comment about this constituting a berm or without any indication that there was some need to go through a design standards review with respect to the landscaping of the property. Neiley said the certificate of occupancy was issued about a year ago the berm as it was referred to by the city was considered by Carole and Jamie to be landscaping of their front yard and was to avoid the trucking of the materials off site and to create some protection from what they discovered during construction were projectiles emanating from the golf course in the form of golf balls that were breaking automobile windshields of people who working on the property and the applicants vehicles. Neiley distributed photos (exhibits 7 to 29) to the commission; one photo showed last winter when they received the certificate of occupancy. Neiley said that Carole and Jamie thought they were engaged in landscaping, which does not require design review consideration or a building permit and in the summer of 2007 made arrangements to have some trees, shrubs and plantings on the berm and the Fishers' got served with a notice from Community Development Department and then this application was submitted. Neiley said they do not view this as a berm and the elevation doesn't change on the western end. Neiley said there was an area of about 200 square feet that was 6 inches higher and one area of about 30 square feet that was 13 inches above what would be permitted for a fence or wall across the front of this property, it goes up to 55 inches and that was intentional because the trajectory of golf balls that come across and this protects and shields automobiles that are located in the driveway. Neiley said that Homestake Drive has become a busy street and the proximity of the property to the cross country ski facilities the street across from the house is used extensively as public parking area. Neiley said they preferred landscaping to a 42 inch wall or a 42 inch fence, which could have been constructed immediately on the property line and would have been less aesthetically pleasing and less consistent with the neighborhood. Neiley said the objective was not to completely disassociate the house with surrounding properties, pedestrians on the street or with the community but to provide a reasonable amount of screening from the impacts of heavy traffic, the impacts of being immediately adjacent to a public facility and the impacts of golf balls flying across the golf course and causing damage to the property. Neiley said there were no design guidelines regarding a berm in the code. 7 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES February 5, 2008 Neiley submitted 161etters (exhibit 29) from neighbors in support of the application. The letters were from Marilyn Marks, Shirley Doon, Linda Nevin, Allison Bone, Kelly Doherty, Sandra Pember, Ron & Selvy Gray, Austine Scott, Curtis Kaufman, Liz Stewart, Chuck Lyons, Clint & Caven Goodrich, The Phillips, Allison Daily, Janet Guthrie and Kurt Bresnitz. Carole Fisher noted the front yard was actually the back yard. Fisher said the house was finished and got the "co" and we thought great everything is done and 5 or 6 months later its summer and we went to plant what we thought was our finished front yard and she based her landscaping on what was in the neighborhood. Cliff Weiss asked when the home was built. Neiley replied it was built in 2006 and finished in January of 2007. Weiss asked when was R-15 put into place. Garrow replied this was part of the residential design standards that were adopted in 2003. Phelan said there was 2003 and 2005. Johns asked if there was a requirement for current properties to conform to design standards. Garrow answered that any property that would come in for a redevelopment would be required to abide by all applicable design standards and this standard is applicable to all properties. Stan Gibbs asked if a landscape plan was required on a development such as this. Garrow replied it was not; these kinds of things would be reviewed if there were a tree that the parks department was interested in saving or if there was tree mitigation that occurred as part of a redevelopment. Phelan said that the landscaping or berm may not have been very visible with snow in the winter. Johns asked if anyone had a copy of the grading and drainage plan or any other site plan. Garrow said she could pull the building permit file. Neiley said he did not have with him. Weiss asked how high the berm was at the highest point. Neiley said the highest point was 55 inches at about 30 square feet and all the rest of it was 42 inches or less. Neiley said it wasn't intentional that they went over the square footage. No public comments. Weiss said he lived on Cemetery Lane and there were many properties with berms; it was not in character with the neighborhood. Weiss requested that zoning walk around the neighborhood to let people know what is legal and what isn't. Weiss 8 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES February 5, 2008 said these folks had their "co" and in the same breath he did not like what this was doing to the neighborhood and he didn't like trees on the corners that you can't see past. Brian Speck said that he did not find the berm offensive and it did not seem inconsistent with the area. Dina Bloom agreed with Brian and said it was consistent with what she saw in the neighborhood. LJ Erspamer said that you can get zero landscaping without the rolling hills or whatever you want to call it but thought it was out of character with the new zoning in the area; he agreed with the staff findings. Stan Gibbs said that he did not believe this was a unique situation; everybody along the golf course has the same problem. Gibbs said the definition of a berm was pretty straight forward and he said there were alternate solutions like a fence at 42 inches. Gibbs said that the issue with the "co" doesn't qualify as a grant of any kind of rights beyond what the code would require. Gibbs agreed with staff. Dylan Johns agreed that it was somewhat in context with the neighborhood although a person who purchased a property in 2005 and there wasn't a new condition that sprung up since then should be automatically grandfathered. Johns did not see an overwhelming cause for a variance just because you live on a golf course; golf balls come. Johns said that he could not support this variance. MOTION: LJ Erspamer moved to approve Resolution #008-08 approving a variance from the Fence Residential Design Standards to permit a berm in the front yard setback on the property located at 1 S50 Homestake Drive; seconded by Stan Gibbs. Roll call vote: Speck, yes; Weiss, no; Bloom, yes; Erspamer, no; Gibbs, no; Johns, no. Motion failed 4-2. MOTION: Cliff Weiss moved to deny Resolution #008-08 approving a variance from the Fence Residential Design Standards to permit a berm in the front yard setback on the property located at 1550 Homestake Drive; seconded by LJ Erspamer. Roll call vote: Speck, no; Bloom, no; Gibbs, yes; Erspamer, yes; Weiss, yes; Johns, yes. Motion to deny approved 4-2. 9 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES February 5 2008 PUBLIC HEARING: ASPEN CLUB CONCEPTUAL SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA AND ASSOCIATED REQUESTS LJ Erspamer opened the public hearing on the Aspen Club. Jim True stated the notices were accepted. Jessica Garrow said that because this was a large case and asked if the commissioners had any specific questions or any further clarification that was in the packet so that she can provide that information at the next meeting. Garrow said that the applicant would give a presentation on the idea behind this redevelopment project not getting into the specific review criteria but why we were seeing this application and continuing this meeting to February 19`h where staff would give a formal presentation and the commission would take public comment. Sunny Vann stated he was the representative for the applicant and introduced Michael Fox. Michael Fox stated that the reason the Aspen Club was putting in this application was that the Aspen Club was unique, all the employees and members were very proud of and an integral part of this community. Fox said to date there were over two hundred employees, over nineteen hundred members and thousands of weekly visitors to the programs of sports medicines, physical therapy and the myriad of activities that go on at the club on a daily basis. Fox said that gathering places were slowly disappearing in Aspen and the Aspen Club was one of the places where people come and gather and there was still a sense of community. Fox said looking to the future of the Aspen Club there were a lot of choices and some were easy and some were much more difficult choices. Fox noted that town was changing and they were dealing with a change in competitive landscape with the Aspen Recreation Facility, which has become a direct subsidized competitor to the Aspen Club. Fox said there were increased operating costs; things were more expensive today than a year ago and certainly more expensive than 15 years ago when he first took over the club. Fox said the developers that have come to talk to him have told him that he could make more money tearing the club down and building houses. Fox said the reason they were here was because he did not want to do that and the Aspen Club was important and unique. Fox wanted to make something that continues to fit the needs of this community and continues to provide a service that you can't find anywhere else; he said they have an asset and a community and group of people that we can be proud of and we are putting together a program that says how do we make the Aspen Club better. Fox said the program that they have put together is unique and this facility upon completion will be the first in the country to combine holistic health and sustainable development; those two things haven't been put together in the past. Fox said this project would have a smaller carbon footprint 10 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES February 5, 2008 than it does today; this project will create less traffic when it's done on Ute Avenue than exists today. Fox said when the project is done it will bring employees who live down valley into town into the community and be able to give back 3 hours a day to somebody and have the employees live at the Aspen Club. Fox said the Aspen Club has an opportunity to bring people and keep people in the community with the new job opportunities in sustainable development and holistic health. Fox said they remodeled the club 15 years ago and so many things change in 15 years in terms of health and well being and a lot of the ideas that made sense 15 years ago don't make sense today, they are not relevant anymore. Fox said they were taking green building processes and applying them to individual buildings, residences, office, retail and then applies to a community. Fox said they were going to use solar pv, geothermal heating, smart building materials and in terms of traffic they were putting a plan together to mitigate traffic with the goal being having less traffic when they are done than they have today. Increased shuttle service, the ability to check out an electric car, bike share, car share programs for employees that live on site (they could create a model for the city), paid parking programs for guests as an auto disincentive; they were trying to look at all the different tools in how to get people out of cars and the goal of reducing traffic for their neighbors. Fox said that they were looking at modular construction for the project. The affordable housing would house 150% of the requirement on site. Fox said his analogy for the redevelopment of the club was sort of like the Jersey Shore to get to be with your whole family; what they were looking to do at Aspen Club Living was to have an interval project with 2 weeks fixed so that you can come out with your whole family and when you are here you are with the same 18 families every year and the whole thing is focused around living and staying healthy. It will be a 2 week retreat in Aspen. The sale of the interval units pay for the improvements to the club and the HOA will help keep the expenses low for the local memberships; the owners will underwrite new programs like stress management, weight management, living with diabetes and living with cancer etc. Fox said this makes the Aspen Club a better community resource, allows growth for the future, allows the creation of something everyone can be proud of, creates a facility with little developmental impacts yet in terms of community impacts it has a fantastic impact and allows them to be a better employer and allows them to be a better health club owner. Fox said this redevelopment allows them to develop better programs, develop integrative uses for the club that tie back into the larger Aspen community. Fox said that they were looking for the commissioners comments. 11 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES Februarv 5 2008 Sunny Vann noted this was a conceptual review and this application was for the scope and the breath of the project and come back at final with the traffic study to help mitigate those concerns. LJ Erspamer asked which code this application came under. Jessica Garrow replied the current code. MOTION.• Dina Bloom moved to continue the public hearing for the Aspen Club to February 19`h seconded by Stan Gibbs. All in favor, approved. Adjourned at 6:30 pm. Glick ~~/~c_-.~-~~ ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 12