Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19950919 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 1995 Chairperson Sara Garton called the meeting to order at 5:40 P.M. She requested roll call. Present were: Sara Garton, Jasmine Tygre, Tim Mooney, Steve Buettow, Marta Chaikovska, and Robert Blaich. Excused was Roger Hunt. COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS Garton stated, in our roll as planning commissioners, as well as zoning, I'm very concerned about the City Council's move to use Marolt for the homeless. From a human point of view, I react automatically, I think I want to do something, but from a long- range planning point of view, I'm very concerned about City government getting into a postion where I think it might be that they are in it forever. First of all, I feel that the churches could take up the slack; every other church that is involved in this has basement space and they could have offered their basement space. Secondly, I think that the Harolt is such a sensitive parcel in the first place and was voted by the public to use open space definitely for employee housing and the existing housing, if this denies any employees any housing I think that is something we should consider. I don't think it is the role of City government to get into a position of housing the homeless. That is my concern, and it is a planning concern. Buettow stated, remember, at the last meeting, we talked about trees and people cutting them down. I was noticing on the new project on 82 and west end, on the southeast corner, the new building there, there used to be a three or four beautiful, spruce trees. They just chopped the lower branches off. Tygre stated, they were gorgeous trees, I walked by there everyday. And you know, they were not sick trees. Buettow stated, no, they were fantastic trees. Leslie Lamont of Community Development stated, just from what I recall, there was no problem with those trees. Garton stated, would the Parks Department look at that? Lamont stated, I'll ask the Parks Department come to give you an update on their new Tree Removal Permits and answer any additional questions PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 1995 you may have. The October 3rd agenda could be a little full. Let me ask them if they could spend about 20 minutes with you "guys". Buettow stated, one of my questions is, why were they allowed to do that? Lamont stated, I will follow-up on that separately. STAFF COMMENTS Lamont stated, there are a couple of things you asked me to follow up on with the City Attorney. One of them being, in the Charter it talks about absences and how many absences that members (of the Commission) can have. There have only been two times that we have not had a quorum recently, but it is something we can follow up on with a memorandum to Council and it is completely appropriate for you all, as a group, to talk about and decide how you want to deal with absences or police yourselves, things like that. The question is, the Charter sets out how many times people can be gone; excused or unexcused absences. The question is, is it appropriate for members to deal with it on their own or should they consult Council about that. Garton stated, my question was, the Charter doesn't define what is an excused absence, but perhaps, we among ourselves should define what is excused. Lamont stated, one thing for sure that we do need to know is when you are going to be gone. We need to know, for example, Jasmine, has called me a couple of times and has said, I don't think I can be here until 5:30 p.m., but if you really need me, call me. Lamont added, another thing Sara had asked me to follow up on awhile ago, is the City's policy with regard to shoveling sidewalks if a sidewalk is put in place as part of our master trails plan versus just a sidewalk; is there any leniency on the City's part to agree to plowing the sidewalk for somebody versus requiring the property owner to plow the sidewalk. The policy is that if you have a sidewalk adjacent to your property, it is your responsibility to plow the sidewalk. That is the City's policy. It is very normal in other cities and it is very common that it is the property owners responsibility to maintain a clear passage. Lamont stated, in addition, the CCLC Business Owners on the Mall pay into a fund that helps keep the malls clear and the sidewalks PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 1995 clear. You see City employees out there with their little brooms and brushes and CCLC Business Owners pay for that. Blaich stated, I recall, one of the issues, I had, is the issue, when you have a sidewalk in a public area, where the City plows just go ahead and cover it up, do you still have the responsibility to keep maintaining it? Lamont stated, that issue has been an on-going issue with the Streets Department and the Parks Department. We are trying to work with the Streets Department so they either plow before people get out there to shovel or whatever. The one issue that Sara brought out was the fact that there was a specific property owner who had a large parcel and was not shoveling the sidewalk, and the City enforced it. Lamont stated, we have one other thing. I would like to remind you, although it is a special date, next Tuesday, September 26th, this is a continued public hearing. For the City to have this meeting, what we are continuing in our worksession, are discussions on AH and RO. Hopefully, after next Tuesday we will be able to pass it onto the City Council and the Board of County Commissioners, text amendments that you recommend them to consider. Lamont added, we will also be giving you the Aspen Area Community Plan update. What things have we accomplished out of the plan, what is our work program for next year, etc. Garton asked, do you want us to fish out all our old packets on AH/RO or are you going to re-copy? Lamont stated, that's a good question. Cindy (Houben) is working on the memorandum and I believe she just wants to kind of summarize and focus on the things we haven't finalized yet. How many of you kept your "stuff"? You know how we have the actual language out of the code, we will at least provide that, and we will provide a summary of what the issues are and what we need to work on. PUBLIC COP~ENTS There were no comments. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 1995 HISTORIC LANDMARK CODE AMENDMENT RESOLUTION 95-29 Garton stated, I will go right to our resolution which Roger asked to have printed and which you all have in your packets, regarding the Historic Landmark Code Amendment Resolution, 95-29. I hope everybody has had an opportunity to read that. As you can see on our agenda, this isn't a time to question, it is a time to look at the resolution and vote. If there are questions, you need to move it to an agenda item. Tygre stated, I have questions and discussion, but I may be the only one. I'm not ready to make a vote. Garton stated, I would like to poll the commissioners as to whether you are ready to vote on this resolution. Blaich, no; Chaikovska, yes; Tygre, no; Garton, yes; Mooney, no; Buettow, yes. Garton stated, I think we better move it after the worksession on Water Place Affordable Housing. MOTION Blaich moved to move the resolution after the Water Place Affordable Housing on the agenda. Tygre seconded. Vote commenced, vote was unanimous in favor, motion carried. MINUTES Tygre stated, I have a couple of minor corrections, and I have them written in red. I would move to approve the minutes of September 5th, 1995, with those changes. Blaich seconded. Vote was unanimous in favor, motion carried. INDEPENDENCE PLACE SPA DESIGNATION & CONCEPTUAL SPA PLAN PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 1995 Garton opened the public hearing. MOTION Tygre stated, I would move to continue the Conceptual SPA Review of Independence Place to December 19, 1995. Chaikovska seconded. Vote was unanimous in favor, motion carried. SHADOW MOUNTAIN AH SUBDIVISION/PUD CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION REZONING, GMQS EXEMPTION, 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW & SPECIAL REVIEW Garton opened the public hearing. Mary Lackner of Community Development presented and stated, the applicant came to me this afternoon and asked that this item be tabled tonight with more discussion. Staff, at this point, feels instead of going forward and having the applicant redesign, just based on the comments we have put in the packet, we want feedback from the Planning Commission. You have seen the site, you have read the packet, you probably have some ideas and some issues that you are thinking about that you might want to convey to the applicant and staff before they go back and do a redesign. Lackner stated, staff's concerns are laid out in the first two pages of the memorandum. There is a threshold issue regarding the geologic hazards. Presently, 85% of that site is located in the County so we are receiving annexation approval. If this property was to be developed in the County it would be allowed one dwelling unit and through the procedures that are in the County code right now, that would have to go through a taking series by the Board of County Commissioners. They have to go back and they have to show past hearings for takings at the Board of Commissioners level. So, it is not a free and clear one unit that they would be allowed. There would have to be this process that they would have approved. That is just one threshold constraint that the City should be aware of. Lackner continued stating, in looking at this property as an N- zoning to AH, we have proposed 14 units, 10 of those are deed- restricted, 4 of them are free market. PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 1995 Lackner stated, there are some other design issues that staff has raised. The trail alignment to meet the Nordic Council's concerns, as well as AACP, that shows an off-road trail that traverses through the rear of this property; not completely in the rear, but it lines up with some other trail alignments. Lackner stated, preserve the Midland Railroad Right of Way for historic preservation concerns. We are also looking at possible reduction of density proposed on the site. We are also looking at perhaps switching the free market. The affordable housing unit locations would help to meet some of the 80/40 standards that talk about keeping development lower on hillsides and out of hazard areas. Bringing the bulk down off the hillside; we think by putting the free market units along the street, and putting the free market units up on the hillside that may be one solution to reduce the mass and bulk of this project. Lackner stated, staff is also looking at relocating the access drive to be directly across from 5th Street, not being offset, but more consistent with the patterns of how roads are developed in the City. We also want more detailed models, height, etc., those were not provided today. Also, possibly just bring FAR of the project down as the units are designed with one or two bedrooms. We have done study areas, we seek potential enforcement problems with that layer becoming two and three bedroom units, which the density of the site and project do not allow. We want to address that density concern up front. Lackner stated, those are our basic design issues and threshold issues. Tom Stevens is here representing the applicant. They are not prepared with any presentation tonight. Ordinance 30 still has some outstanding issues in terms of design of this project. We think getting through these other threshold things first, and then, take a look at Ordinance 30, is the best way to proceed. Garton asked, because this is a public hearing, we need the Certification of the Notice? Stevens stated, I don't have that with me to provide it to you, but we will provide that. Garton asked, how do you wish to proceed, do you just want us to input right now? Stevens stated, I would like to just tell you what has gotten us to this point, and what we would like to get out of tonight. PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 1995 Stevens stated, this project has gone through several different designs, and a lot of them before I came on board, so I don't know too much of the history. It started out at 36 units, and then, it was 24, and now we are at 14, and I think more than, each time, representing a reduction in density. Each time has represented a different level of input from different groups. The applicant has attempted to meet with a lot of the surrounding neighbors. We have met with the Housing Office. We have gotten quite a bit of input at this point and each time we did, we cycle through a little bit more and change, not only the program, but the overall design of the project and the resulting density. One of the first things I wanted to do when I came on board was to get the project to fit within the dimensional requirements of the AH Zone District. Rezoning this project is a real threshold issue, but I don't see that the project will go anywhere if once we rezone it; it still doesn't fit the zone district. That is what really got the project down to the 14 units. We now have to incorporate the issues with Ordinance 30, and that is going to force us into another design of this project. Unfortunately, the design you have in front of you right now was done prior to Ordinance 30 and we have been dragging our feet as we get through this process, but we have not had the opportunity to cycle through specific requirements of Ordinance 30. As we go into the redesign of the project, we would like to have the benefit of input from this group, also, so that when it comes back to you, we are able to respond to your concerns. We have an unbelievable ability to spend money designing and designing, and come to a Board completely clean and fresh without any input from you, and have it completely in the wrong direction as to what you "guys" anticipate seeing on this site. Stevens stated, number one, the biggest issue for us is, do you see the site as an acceptable site to be redesigned for AH? That really involves a couple of different things. One of those that Hary touched on is the physical site itself and what hazards are presented. I don't know how many of you were on this Commission when we did Ute Park Subdivision. The physical constraints there were significantly more than they are here and what came through that process is that it is fairly simple to mitigate those from an architectural standpoint. What I would rather do in this project, than try to deal with rockfall and snowslide from an architectural standpoint, is avoid them altogether. We are in the process right now of trying to get those precisely mapped by a geologist so that we know the real limits and the real extent to what we are up against. At that point, we really intend to try to link them PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 1995 altogether. From a physical standpoint on the site, we can handle those issues. Stevens stated, more than that, I see compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan and general compatibility with the surrounding area as the biggest hurdles in the rezoning question. One thing within this application; we were just below the 60/40 mix required of the AH Zone District and of the Aspen Area Community Plan. We need to add a bedroom to one of the deed-restricted units that gets us to an 18 and 12 count of 60/40, so, just consider that to be a non-issue, it will be 60/40. Stevens stated, we've talked about the trail. We met with Craig Ward, we've gotten recommendations from staff and I think we can accommodate. We do intend to dedicate a trail easement; staff has recommended that it go behind the units. Craig Ward has recommended that it go behind the units. We can do that right now, I don't know the precise alignment of that thing, but what you do have my commitment on, is that we will dedicate an easement and will make an alignment that is acceptable to everybody. Until we get some more input, we don't know exactly where it is, but we know generally where it is at this point. The last issue on the Aspen Area Community Plan is a commitment right away that essentially cuts through the center of the site. Right now, I'm not sure that is something we can accommodate the preservation of. We've come a long way in taking input and cycling it into a plan and being able to accomplish those things, and hopefully, we can do that with this also. Until we have a chance to take a look at it, I just don't know. Stevens said, in terms of compatibility with the surrounding area, we've got single-family detached, we've got multi-family, we've got lodge, so, from a residential standpoint, we're compatible. The issue is, whether or not the density is compatible. We laid this thing out in 3,000 square foot lots. We thought this was a great idea, Old Aspen was laid out on 3,000 square foot lots, 30 X 100 foot grid. In fact, remnants from that can be seen around town. There are some directly adjacent to us that are still 30 foot lots. A lot of these lots have been bought and merged together and they kind of grow and grow. There aren't too many 3,000 square foot lots left in Aspen, but that is the orginal grid system for Aspen. Stevens continued stating, the overall density that we are at right now, at 14, it won't be my decision whether or not that density can PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 1995 be reduced or not, but I do know that the finances on this thing are starting to get pretty thin. They originally thought they were going to have well over double that, and we have continually whittled it down; I've whittled it down, the Housing Office has whittled it down, and that is always the kind of big question, what is that magic number that is acceptable. What I would like to do, is rather than focus on just fourteen units, that's too much, that's right on the nose, or that's too little, let's cycle through what input you "guys" have in terms of design and see what that design looks like on site. Clearly, we are more dense on a unit per acre than single-family homes in the adjacent neighborhood. We are less dense than the multi-family, more less dense than the lodge. The City's own West Hopkins Project, which is two blocks further away from town is 32 units to the acre. This has got 13. Rather than say just 14 or some magic number, unless it is too high, I'd like to redesign this thing and see what that looks like on the site. Stevens stated, so, given physical site, given the Aspen Area Community Plan, and given compatibility with the neighborhood, really, our biggest issue is, if you "guys" think it is an appropriate site for an AH project, then, let's talk about the design of it, because that way we can cycle through that input. The next time you see it, hopefully, we can be able to respond positively to that. Garton stated, because this is so wide open, without a real conceptual design yet, I think I'll return to the table before we go to the public to ask for any input from the commissioners to the specific things that Tom just asked for. Do you think this site is appropriate for rezoning to affordable housing? Let's respond to that. Does anyone have any specific comments about that? I agree with Tom. I think that they are not going to go forward in asking for rezoning if we don't think this is an appropriate site for affordable housing. Buettow stated, I feel uncomfortable with the rezoning. In putting affordable housing there, it is very dense. Hooney stated, I'm not that uncomfortable with it. I think we should be able to plan it right, be able to build it right, and I think we should have enough good ideas that just about any site can be rezoned to AH. I'm willing to work with the applicant. I think what is proposed right now isn't appropriate for the site, in my opinion. We can get into that, but I think it is the mass and structure of the buildings. I think one of the things, having PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 1995 these buildings some forty feet above the street level are going to be huge-looking buildings. I'm wondering whether or not we have to have that mass because we're starting with the basic premise that we have the garages underneath and then we are building the living areas on top. We are kind of like "birthday caking" this mass up against the hillside that is a very narrow look at the site. Hy basic idea is that I'm for AH zone, and I think we should be able to redesign and develop it and make it compatible with just about any place. Blaich stated, I share Tim's feelings on this. When I looked at the plan and I looked at the site, I had a number of questions. I think the basic question is, should we look at it seriously as affordable housing for rezoning. I think we should. Chaikovska stated, I'm not comfortable with the rezoning. I think the density is far too high for that area. It would have to be substantially redesigned before I would consider that as appropriate. Tygre stated, I think there are two issues as far as the affordable housing goes. There's the density and the mass. I'm not really that concerned about the density and I think that the mass as in the proposal, is not acceptable. I was very pleased to hear you say that you were more interested in avoiding the possible physical hazards on the slope and building around them. One of my "pet peeves" is massive block retaining walls and all kinds of structures to allow people to build up their area that really probably shouldn't be built up in. I think that is a site concern. Tyre stated, one of the things that has always been interesting about that are la of town is that there were little pockets of zoning; this is one zone district, and the very next street is another zone district, this is in the City, this is in the County. This is all kind of tailored around, followed up the bottom and edge of Shadow Mountain. We've seen this over the years. To me, that site, although it is right up against the face of Shadow Hountain, is still within the City limits, even though it is County property. I think that, if appropriately handled, density would be O.K. on that site. I really do not want to see the big expanses that Tim mentioned sneaking up the mountainside. I think the smaller units and a better design, and a better attention to, especially, the circulation of people in and out of the project, could go a long way toward making this an acceptable project for the neighborhood. 10 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 1995 Tygre added, as a threshold issue, I, like Tim and Bob, feel that we can work with the applicant and that this would be an appropriate site to make for affordable housing. Garton stated, I would like to see the parcel annexed because I don't like what the County has done with the other parcels on the other side of Hopkins. I think it is a marginal site, Tom. I know that the Aspen Area Community Plan wants more affordable housing but I don't think affordable housing belongs in this parcel. I would rather see a house. That divides the Commission 3 and 3, so, how would you like to proceed? We don't know how Roger feels and certainly a redesign might change people's minds. I have a lot of questions. Stevens stated, luckily for me, this isn't my call. With 3 for and 3 against, I wouldn't want to have to make that decision. I may have to pass this on to the partners on this thing. Hy gut feeling is that design is just sort of a problem of balancing all the different inputs on the project. The more imput we get, the more we can balance those things. I think that being able to design this to where it is acceptable is not a big issue with me. I'm fairly confident it can be done. That is more addressed to the three, that if the design came back, again, it is not going to be my call. Hy gut reaction is that we will probably take at least one more cut at the design of this thing and if we can get to a point where we are comfortable with it, we'll bring it back. Garton stated, I think at this point, because Tom has addressed so many of these threshold issues, that we should stop and I'll open it to the public for comments about what we are considering here. I guess the first thing is, affordable housing. A mixed use of affordable housing and a free market project for this neighborhood. Is there anyone from the public that wants to speak to this? Charles Cunniffe stated, I wonder why this site is viewed as being unable to carry the density that is being carried on all the other projects that are across the street. It seems like in looking at this, it is whether or not it has the carrying capacity for affordable housing. It might be wise or fair to look at the adjacent neighborhood and what the carrying capacity of the neighborhood is. What do the other buildings along that street have as a density, as well. As Tom pointed out, even the project on West Hopkins, just up the street, has far more density. It is the mass more than the density. In all fairness to the people who want to be able to live in this community, if the sentiment of the various Boards in town is, that as these projects come in and are 11 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 1995 viewed as marginal, we are never going to get the housing requirement that we want to build. The goal is 60 percent housing within the limits of the community. We've only housed 35 percent, so far. Where is the other 25 percent going to go? If this site is marginal, I've got to tell you, I think a lot more sites are far more marginal and far less worthy than this one for the kind of density this could hold. I think we are asking for a lot less density than is capable on this site. Karen Sellars stated she agreed with Cunniffe and she thought that the project should be given a fair chance. Hans Gramiger stated, if this is a public meeting, don't we have to have notification? Garton replied, yes. Gramiger stated, for the record, in case anything has to be appealed, I have not been notified, I have come completely unprepared to talk about it. However, I will respond to Toms Stevens' statement that you are going to have 3,000 square feet of free market lot spots. Every lot in the City of Aspen consists of 3,000 square foot lots. If somebody has a 3,000 square feet lot, it is a non-conforming lot under the zoning regulations today. However, we have, through the zoning, since 1955, made a law that what was acceptable in the mining days, to build on a 3,000 square foot lot is not acceptable today, you have to have two lots, 6,000 square feet. What you are actually trying to do here is create non-conforming lots which is completely contradictory to the philosophy of the zoning that we have to have 6,000 square feet. Gramiger stated, I am not prepared to react to anything else because I was not notified. Stevens stated, I was not on board when public notices went out on this thing, but I will check with the "guys" that did that and bring in the documentation that is required. Lamont stated, Tom, you are asking P&Z to table this meeting. Do you want to table it to a date certain to continue the public hearing or do you just want to table it and let us know when you are ready to come back to P&Z and we will completely do another public noticing, which may be the safest way? Stevens stated, in reality, it is going to take at least 30 days to cycle through redesigns and things like that. I have no idea how that fits in to P&Z's scheduling. I guess I would just rely on your advice. 12 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 1995 Lamont stated, would you consider the last meeting in October or the first meeting in November? Stevens answered, that's as early as we can cycle through any design revisions. If there is a question about the noticing, since I didn't do it myself, I would prefer to handle it myself and make sure that it is done. At this point, I don't have any reason to believe that it was not done, but if that is a question, rather than table it to a date certain, we could republish it. Lamont stated, my recommendation is that we table to the first Tuesday of November, and we will probably want to renotice for that meeting just to be sure. Stevens stated, that's fine, that will give us enough time to do what we need to do. Garton stated, so, instead of taking any more comments from the public, as this may not be a bona fide public hearing, I'll entertain a motion. It's mute. We're going to do two things. We're going to table and have the first public hearing at that time. It was discussed by the Commission that perhaps it would be best to hear more public comment since many people had gathered for the hearing and the feedback from the public would be helpful. Garton agreed. Richard Knezevich stated he did not feel the site was appropriate for an AH project and stressed the heavy amount of parking in the area. Hartha Hadsen, apartment owner across the street from the project, stressed her concerns regarding the crowded parking on the street. She stated, we have had an increase of crime on West Hopkins this last six months to a year. I think the density is a concern from that standpoint. I personally am concerned about the increase in crime. Charles Paterson, owner of the property across the street, the Boomerang Lodge, for 46 years stated, I understand what you are saying about employee housing, but the question is, is the site appropriate. At this stage, I would really like to say how we feel about it. We feel the site is not appropriate, and I know I am at a disadvantage to say that because I am across the street and it is 13 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 1995 obvious. I feel very, very strongly that the foot of Shadow Hountain is not an appropriate site for an AH zone. Hans Gramiger stated, I think Charlie could have said something else, maybe, that he was an architect. Fonda Paterson, wife of Charles Paterson, and also owner of the Boomerang Lodge, across the street from the proposed project, stated she felt the land at the foot of Shadow Hountain should have special consideration was because in her view it was transitional land. She stated, we love that neighborhood because we have the wilderness right in our front yard, and that's Shadow Hountain. To go from Shadow Hountain to high density, I don't think is the highest and best land use. I look at it as transitional and I would like to see the P&Z respond to it as some kind of a blending of the wilderness with the town. Garton closed the public hearing. Stevens asked, could I get you "guys" to give some other input on just one other issue? It has been suggested that we flip-flop the position of the affordable housing, with the free market up on the hillside and the affordable housing low. If we are to go on to redesign this project, that would help a lot. Could we get some input on that? Blaich stated, like Tim, I wasn't so concerned with density, I'm concerned with how you package the density. If that could be worked out and put the free market in the rear and put the high density in the front, this might also meet some of the objections we heard about transitional space. Again, I have read these arguments and I have some real sensitivities to some of these feelings about it. I think the real question of the scale, like the mass, are design issues. They can be worked on. I think all the other issues I've heard from your comments; these things can be resolved. I guess the only thing I haven't heard spoken about is the preservation of the Hidland Railroad. I put a big question mark behind this. I think the real issues are the density and the scale. I still don't have a problem with the density if it is designed in such a way to deal with it. That includes the parking problem. Chaikovska stated, here we have what looks like a subdivision to me. It's got a road cut into it that goes in towards the upper units. To me, it is completely different from what this entire 14 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 1995 neighborhood looks like. A subdivision in the middle of this neighborhood, and this is what this looks like to me, I just don't see it as appropriate. Chaikovska stated, as to the issue of affordable housing, we have got to find a place to put it because we need to meet the community plan, you know, just to put up affordable housing for the sake of affordable housing is not the right way to go. We have stuck affordable housing in places where it is not appropriate. Design or no design, I think we should be very sensitive to the neighborhood, we should be very sensitive to what is appropriate, and we should put affordable housing where it is appropriate. Stevens asked, I'm curious as to what makes it inappropriate. Chaikovska stated, to me, this is a subdivision. It is the wrong kind of design for that neighborhood. We've spent months talking about what is appropriate in what neighborhood, all through all these ordinances, guidelines, to have a neighborhood be consistent in terms of design, in terms of density. This design doesn't fit. I say, again, perhaps there is a design that does fit for this particular street. This isn't it. If you do come up with something that would fit better, perhaps there is a design that would work, but you have to be sensitive to the neighborhood. That's what we have talked about for the past year. I don't think that Bob would disagree or Tim would disagree on that, as well. Blaich stated, we were asking our opinions whether it is issues, and I think it is kind of resolved. They should have a shot at it and they could come back if we still feel that it doesn't meet the requirement. I just feel that we are looking at something here that we thought was maybe concrete until we got to this meeting. There's a lot of openess and the possibilities of redesign, and I think there should be a chance to do that. Garton stated, Tom has asked what we feel about flip-flopping the affordable housing with the free market houses. Tygre stated, I think that would be acceptable. Hy suggestion would be that part of the design be a reduction in the size of all the units. Your question of the questionable dens and second bedrooms. There was a development that came to us once with a project with 800 square foot studios with two doors, two entrances. I think we can come up with a one-bedroom apartment with two or three dens or studios, that isn't as questionable. I think that what might make this project more acceptable would be if you 15 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 1995 already have one two-bedroom unit, let them be one or two bedroom units that are livable, but not necessarily huge. I would like to see the free market houses reduced in size also. I think there is a danger of putting the affordable units on the streetscape if they're not really attractive. I think that could be a terrible affront to anybody walking by because they would be the most visible. On the other hand, if you are going to start putting up some of these "monsters" up the hill that you can see from 8,000 miles away, I think that would be even worse. I think the flip- flopping would be good if you are sensitive to the scale and the height of the buildings that go up the hill. I would like to see buildings not go too far up into the pine trees or spruce trees, or anything like that. Hooney stated, I don't know, seeing the affordable housing right on the street, and the buffer zone to the affordable housing units is this huge patch of asphalt. It is such a dramatic reflection, and look at these three story garages off the asphalt, living levels, and then, sleeping levels right on Main Street or Cooper Street with 82 as you go out. That is just so massive and everything is just so bright against that, that I kind of like the idea of having the free market units in front so that we do have some kind of a miner's design, we do have some kind of a 3,000 square foot lot. We went by and noticed Charles' design next to Ben Hall's house and what I guess would be a 3,000 square foot lot. That kind of tempo on the street makes more sense to me than the kinds of tempo we have. That is just too bright and too strong and totally inappropriate for anywhere in Aspen ever again. Hooney stated, so, then, we get to the idea of what does this road that goes through the middle of it really work as, and if there are going to be garages on the backside of these 3,000 square foot free market houses. That the cars aren't going to end up on the street that belong to the free market units. With this some kind of a really interestingly designed road, can it handle the fire trucks turning around and all of the safety and the equipment needs to get in there and all of the traffic that needs to go to the affordable units up on the hill, and all of the traffic that needs to go to the free market units in front; who designs that is really going to be a wizard, in my opinion. Hooney continued stating, if you can see these things from Hain Street by looking down the street, and you are kind of driving down Main Street and you look over and go, "what is that"? If we're going to look at that kind of "stuff", I mean, I'm not going to look at that kind of "stuff". So, I think you have to change your 16 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 1995 categories, change your bedroom count, and change your density. If you are putting cubital, cut-up, 3,000 square foot Ben Hal-type houses there, I can't see you putting university dormitory-style, massing on the backend of it. I don't object to the free-market, to answer your question, in the front, on the street. Buettow stated, it is a very speculative site because I originally like the free market units, the lots in the front, because each house could have an identity and something that would be relatable to people walking by. Then, I see these huge masses, up the slope. To consider your proposal of reversing it, then, I see if you put the smaller houses with identity up on the slope, it could be sensitive, it could fit in, maybe, environmentally. Then, you have larger masses down on the street, which is kind of a detriment similar to the project that Tim has referred to. It depends on the design, how it turns out. There are pluses and minuses. Hooney stated, this leaves absolutely no room for any kind of landscaping. We have construction and rooflight and windows and asphalt. If you look at Charles' 3,000 square foot house, there is no landscaping on that either. There is just no place for it to go. I think that the density and the mass and the scale has to allow for a considerable amount of landscaping. Blaich stated, again, I come back to the same issues. Staff has pointed out a number of things in here. I think one of the things that is still not clear to me is the visual impact. I think that placing a stakes and/or a computer generated drawing, which would probably be even better, maybe both, but at least to get some site lines in there. I still think there is a resolution in here through design. It is a task. I think it is a problem to be solved through design. I could change my mind if the design came back, I might say that I don't buy it. I don't buy the one the way it is. If we were to vote on this, I would vote against it, the way it is proposed. Garton stated, I prefer the single, free market lots on the street. Mary, I have a question. If the Midland Park Railroad Right of Way becomes an historic resource, what kind of priority, what kind of clout does that have on a natural resource? Does the development and the design have to honor the historical resource? 17 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 1995 Lackner replied, it is just a request by HPC, because it is eligible from a national register. It is the only historic right of way that's being looked at, and Hidland is somewhat intact along Shadow Mountain. That's why it was brought up by Amy Amidon to be preserved. Garton stated, it can't be violated, then, by a design. It must be preserved. Lackner stated, I think with most things with HPC, it is a negotiated process. Garton stated, but the Haroon Creek Bridge, for example, cannot be moved or changed. Lackner stated, it is eligible for it, it is just a matter of paperwork before it can qualify. Garton stated, but if it gets on it, it can't be touched. Lackner stated, my understanding of it, it is not that cut and dry, it's not like the Maroon Creek Bridge. The identification of this is something that does need a standard to be listed on the national register and they are trying to preserve that. What they have asked is, that it not be paved, and that it remain an open nature and they would like to see it maintained as a trail, hopefully with no crossings, but we're not sure that that can happen. Garton stated, maybe, we could get back results before the next meeting and the fact that it is a site and not a structure might make the difference, too. (Public) stated, the problem that you are seeing is a function of the underlying zoning itself. When you look at AH project, what you are seeing is exactly what Tom mentioned from the start, and that is, the developer has to have property. Believe me, I understand that, representing developers, and I don't fault the developers problem. The ultimate result, to get passed the planning standpoint, in order to make that pocket there must be more mass, there must be more density. That's the price you are paying for having a private incentive in an AH zone itself. Whereas, theoretically, we have the Housing Authority, who can have less density, less mass. MOTION Tygre stated, I move to continue the public hearing on this project to November 7th, 1995. Chaikovska seconded, voting commenced. Vote was unanimous in favor, motion carried. 18 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 1995 WATER PLACE AFFORDABLE HOUSING WORKSESSION There was a worksession, but minutes were not taken on the proceeding. The worksession, however, was taped. Dave Michaelson, Community Development staff planner, presented. HISTORIC LANDMARK CODE AMENDMENT RESOLUTION RESOLUTION 95-29 Garton stated, we need to quickly have a discussion about the resolution. Hooney stated, I only have one, and we talked about this before. It can be simplified having lots 9,000 to 12,000, but I still think we might consider it for all the other lots that are going to be capable of doing this, and who is going to do that. Are we going to consider that on a staff level to make an admendment to this text amendment so that if someone has an historically dated lot split, and say, it is less, 6,000 to 8,000 square feet. Lackner stated, those are Conditional Use Reviews and at this time we don't want to make it a committed or allowed by right property to split it. I think that would be looked at as each case came in. Mooney stated, O.K., that's all I wanted to bring up again, I think it is something we might have to face. Tygre stated, so, Conditional Use as it is in the memorandum? Lackner stated, for less than 9,000 square feet. Tygre stated, I'm confused because the resolution doesn't have some things in there that I thought. Garton asked, what is that, Jasmine? Tygre stated, because it says, here, in the whereas', that we are not restricting them to these lot splits per year, and in one of the discussions it was said that there would only be one a year. 19 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 1995 Lackner stated, one a year is a regular lot split. It is not this one. Any lot split in the City that has recently been changed in the GHQS Ordinance to be restricted to one a year or two in the metro area. Tygre stated, and there is no restriction on the lot splits on the historical? Lackner stated, right. Tygre stated, I'm trying to come to grips with this because a lot of these things don't seem to track with each other. There's no restriction on the number, it doesn't matter, there's no first come, first serve. Anybody who wants it can get it. Lackner replied, right. Vickery stated, there are 37 properties on the enventory that would be in the size category of landmarked parcels. I looked at the map, I drove around the R-6 areas; my estimate is, that there is maybe, a quarter or a third of those properties, at the very most, that could take advantage of something like this. You are talking about a total of 9 to 12 parcels who could realistically, actually, utilize this thing. I don't think you are going to see over 1 or 2 a year, no matter what happens. Tygre stated, my concern is to avoid the law of unintended consequences which we have come up with so many times at P&Z. I really have a problem with creating what looks like could be 21, 3,000 square foot non-conforming lots, where there is no commonalty of ownership. I think if you had a situation where you have development, let's say, even an affordable housing project, where there is a community interest, because they are either deed restricted or they are under a common control of ownership by the Condominium Association, although it may be acrimonious, that's one thing. I have great problems with 21 individually owned non- conforming lots where there is not some kind of commonalty of ownership or commonality of ownership interests. I think this is causing potential problems down the road. I just feel that this particular thing works perfectly well on your project, but I'm not sure how well it works on other projects. I really kind of relunctant to open the door to it. Garton stated, I believe like Jake, this is simply a good housekeeping measure, and probably, I think he has beneficial aspects instead of anything that is detrimental, and that is, retaining the small, historic structure, which I would really love to see happen, and can happen, with this kind of a resolution. It is only for the historic zone, it is to preserve those small parcels, and by preserving it, allowing that small structure, by the lot split. It is much more desirable to me, than what has been 2O PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 1995 happening to our historic resources. I think it is not going to increase anything, nothing bigger is going to be on it. I'm not afraid of this, I think it is very important this is done. Lackner stated, just to clarify, it is a Conditional Use to have two residential dwelling units with a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, even though it is an historic landmark. Garton stated, with a Conditional Use you can do it anyway. Lackner stated, this lot split would not be eligible for those parcels. We were talking about, if it is a committed use, meaning it is a 9,000 square foot lot or greater, you could go for the lot split. If you are at 6,000 square feet, you cannot. We don't want to make this available for a Conditional Use. Vickery stated, you can pass those comments on to Council because it is going to be looked at again. Garton stated, staff is already interested in tracking this and watching this to see if, perhaps, it should go to other areas, other zones. Definitely, I agree with Jake, that we just start with this. Lamont stated, you have a change to really watch it and see what happens, especially since we are taking the condominiumization out of the code. MOTION Buettow stated, I move to approve this resolution. Blaich seconded. Vote commenced, vote was 5 in favor, 1 opposed (Tygre). Hotion carried. Meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, 21 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 1995 Sharon M. Carrillo, Deputy City Clerk 22