HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19881108
o
,J!'
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 8. 1988
Chairman Welton Anderson called meeting to order at 4:30 pm.
Answering roll call were Michael Herron, Jim Colombo, Roger Hunt,
Jasmine Tygre and Welton Anderson. Graeme Means arrived just
after roll call. Bruce Kerr and Mari peyton were excused.
COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS
Roger: The teen center wants to get on the agenda later this
evening. If there are any delays in this process at this point,
we are not going to make the December 26, 1989 deadline. There
are problems here that I really think we should discuss
preliminarily with the architects. I would like to know if there
is any way we can get a special meeting before then to discuss
this preliminarily.
A date of November 29 was set for this discussion.
Michael: In reviewing the application for 200 East Main I
noticed that the Fleischer Co., Don Fleischer is appointed as the
representative. I am somewhat concerned about who the Planning
Office lets make applications. I don't have a problem with
lawyers doing it or architects doing it or planners doing it.
But do we have any kind of criteria as to who can come in
representing somebody?
Someone said no.
Michael: So anybody can come in and claim to represent an owner
and there is no criteria necessary. Anybody with any
qual if ications at all? We have licensing requirements in the
State where different people are licensed to perform different
functions. I think the function of representing somebody before
P&Z Commission is something that should be confined to somebody
who has got some professional expertise in the area and that we
shouldn't just allow anybody to come in and do that.
Cindy: You can be your own representative. So long as they make
the complete application.
Welton: But we also don't want to make it a financial burden on
anybody that wants to come before us.
Michael: I am not saying you can't represent yourself. I think
anybody is entitled to come in here an represent themselves but I
don't think anybody can turn around and draw plans for somebody
else and bring them to the Building Department, you have got to
be an architect to do that. You can't go to court and represent
~ somebody else unless you are a lawyer.
PZMll.8.88
In this town we have developed a profession of land planners who
are very proficient in what they do. But I think other than
those 3 groups just to let any citizen be available out there to
come in and represent somebody else I think is inappropriate.
Welton: I have been doing a kind of lobbying campaign on City
Council to get them to step in where the Ski Company stepped out
as far as our community service pass that no longer exists.
Thursday afternoon City Council is going to be meeting on budget
items. I am planning on attending the meeting on Thursday
afternoon and continue this lobby effort as far as community
service recognition is concerned. I invite any other
Commissioners who are interested to join me.
Then I attended the CMC/Aspen Leadership monthly course seminar
along with some enrolled people and invited guests. The topic
was housing. Apparently they are doing housing considerably
differently in Snowmass than they are here. And as a result they
have a lot more employee type housing on line than we do
percentage wise population.
Part of it is because they have reduced their PUD process to a 2
step process when it involves employee housing. I think we have,
for a long time, considered that everybody has to go through the
same process no matter who they are and you don't make a special
streamlined process for nobody particularly not the City. One of
the comments that Jim Adamski made on a number of occasions
during the seminar was "The process in the City and the County is
so odious that it discourages people to come forward with
applications for employee housing".
I called the Planning Office in Snowmass today and asked them to
send me copies of what information they have. I am going to do
some studying and research on it but I would like to have the
other Commission members think--maybe schedule some time in
January--a discussion on the way they do in Snowmass and whether
we could streamline it here to be as good as Snowmass.
There were a lot of good ideas exchanged over the table at the
meeting and a lot of frustration from the Housing Authority that
I did not know existed. One of the comments that I made during
the seminar was that the Planning Office 10 these many years has
been conditioned like Pavilla's dogs to bark out "No" whenever
anybody says "I want to build"--the response is "No".
That is not necessar ily in the best interest. In the ca se of
the Flower Garden Apartments, their response was "No" rather
than the approach I prefer to take which is "Well no, it isn't
allowed now but let's figure out how we can change the law to
make it work.
-..
2
--
PZMl1.8.88
Cindy: That is exactly the response we gave them.
Welton: That is not the way it came across. There is the
amendment process where we can change laws and there are
emergency ordinances which can change them quick. I think we
need to be, particularly as regards employee housing, a lot more
creative and a lot more fast-track. And maybe a little less
cautious.
Roger: If you would like to see how our new FAR and bulk
limitations in the residential zone are working, I would
recommend you drive by about 306 East Bleeker. There is areal
monstrosity going in there that everyone should reward themselves
to take a look at. I assume it is under the new regulations. If
that is the case we are faced with another disaster.
Jim: I heard something about there is still some consideration
of the snow dump either facility or equipment going over by the
sanitation site. I thought that was settled.
Tom: If you can't get employee housing over there we might try
it. The P&Z and Council would both like to see the snowmelter
snow dump thing out of the Rio Grande. We are looking for any
possible site.
STAFF COMMEN'rS
There were none.
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 20 AND OCTOBER 4. 1988
Jasmine made a motion to approve minutes of September 20, 1988.
Roger seconded the motion with all in favor.
Roger made a motion to approve minutes of October 4, 1988.
Jim seconded the motion with all in favor.
200 EAST MAIN STREET GMOS EXEMPTION FOR HISTORIC LANDMARK
Roxanne made presentation as attached in records.
Recommendations are stated in memo attached in records.
Bruce Sutherland:
us to provide one
in on our plan.
In response to the parking. They have asked
more car and we provide 2. We can get 5 cars
3
PZMll.8.88
After discussion between Commission members and Sutherland
regarding parking--
Jasmine: I was confused about the condition that the housing fee
be restricted to employees of the project. I understand staff
wanted to do that in order to reduce the need for parking on site
but I don't think that there is any guarantee that just because
the people who work there also live there. I think that is a
meaningless condition. I think it is going to be difficult if
not impossible to enforce. In many cases that becomes a very
unrealistic and unworkable solution.
It seems to me that it doesn't really satisfy the concern about
parking and at the same time makes it unduly restrictive in terms
of employees and employee housing.
Welton: In the past we have said that the affordable housing
uni ts shall be rented or sold to the building employees on a
first come basis and then to the community's employees.
MOTION
Welton: I would entertain a motion to recommend approval for the
project at 200 E. Main Street with conditions as listed in the
Planning Office memo numbered PZ200em with the condition 112 the
last sentence being changed to read "The affordable housing
shall only be rented or sold to the building's employees
initially on a first come, first serve basis and then to
community employees.
Roger: Change that wording "The affordable housing unit shall be
offered to be rented or sold to the building's employees first in
order to reduce the parking needs for the site. Otherwise they
will be open to the community at large".
Welton: And also in that motion that I would entertain "That the
parking be changed to 5 parking spaces as indicated on the
exhibits left by Bruce Sutherland at this meeting of November 8,
1988". And that those 5 parking spaces be reviewed and any
encroachment licenses required be obtained. And 2 of them
signed for resident units.
Roger: I so move.
Michael seconded the motion.
Roxanne: Regarding the Fire Department restrictions under 114.
The new structure shall contain an approved sprinkler system due
4
PZMll.8.88
to the close proximity to the adjacent historic landmark
structure.
That was my understanding in talking with Wayne Vandemark--that
he requested that. However in talking with the applicant today,
they stated that he has come up with another plan. I recommended
that they get something in writing today from him that stated
that if he didn't actually have to have the building sprinklered
that they come up with another plan.
Roger: Is there 10 feet between the 2 buildings?
Welton: There is not.
Roger: I am interested in 10 ft between the buildings in order
to reduce this type of restriction without the fire marshal
saying otherwise.
Joe Wells: I don't think we are asking you to blanket waive that
condition. Some of these issues ask for the Fire Marshal's
consent and we are happy to get that if we can reword this so
that the sprinkler system issue just becomes something else that
needs the Fire Marshal's approval, we would be satisfied.
Roger: 114--the last sentence on that "Wr i tten approval of these
issues from the Fire Marshall shall be received by the Building
Department prior to a building permit being granted". We may be
able to just insert the words at the end of the sentence prior to
that "Or the equivalent at the discretion of the Fire Marshal and
then the last sentence--does that accomplish it?
Welton: You mean the 3rd to the last sentence. The new
structure shall contain an approved sprinkler system or approved
equivalent approved by the Fire Marshal due to the close
proximity of the adjacent historic landmark structure".
Roger: I withdraw the motion.
Michael: I withdraw the second.
Welton: Would you take the text of the first motion with its
changes and add to that first motion the changes that were just
discussed.
Roger: Yes. I will so move.
Michael seconded the motion with all in favor.
5
r
PZMll.8.88
GORDON SUBDIVISION/POD AND STREAM MARGIN REVIEW
CALLAHAN POD AMENDMENTS AND LOT LINE ADJUS'l'MEN'r
Cindy made presentation as attached in records.
Roger: I have grave problems with 2A. I saw that building
envelope out there and anything but a 1 room log cabin is too
much of a building on that site. I am not seeing the PUD
activity getting in gear in this proposal right now. I saw how
close your building envelope stake was to the river over the bank
and I find a building envelope that goes about 4 ft down over the
bank and within 3 ft of the river is not an appropriate building
envelope.
I would prefer seeing 2A joined with 9 and the re-configuration
of 9 and using that PUD for that one lot as opposed to try to cut
it up in this--in other words apply the POD in effect to whatever
you want to call that larger lot and get out of that bad area
that I really don't consider a particularly a good building site
except for the smallest kind of building.
Cindy: The other issue that we have is with an adjacent land
owner, Mr. Murray. That is an access easement that was given to
Lot 1 back at the time the Gordon Lot split was done. It is a
30ft wide access easement and utility easement. The Planning
Office recommendation is that this is not a good road. It is not
necessary access because Lot 1 has an alternative access.
However the easement was given and there is no way that they can
relinquish that easement at this point.
Michael: I don't think we can do anything in this development
that effects the owner of Lot l' s rights. He has got the right
to that easement.
Sunny: Made presentation for applicant.
We showed the building envelopes basically behind the existing
vegetation line and behind the 100 year flood plain to achieve
some maximum flexibility on the siting of the houses. However,
recognizing Cindy's concerns we are willing to further restrict
these envelopes to insure that there is a minimum of grading--
there is no change to the basic land form, there is no removal of
major mature vegetation along the river and there is no
construction out into the embankment itself.
To volunteer to restrict this property to only 2 units when its
allowable density is 4 or 5 without even the opportunity to try
to design it to see if it will carry it is an unreasonable
requirement. And it is one that we will not agree to.
6
PZMll.8.88
Recognizing that it is difficult to visualize it in this format,
what we agree to do is if we could conceptually approve the lot
that we would come back as part of our next step and at our risk
with more detailed information on how we would accommodate a
house on that site and have it stand or fall based on your review
with additional information.
While we cannot voluntarily give up an easement which we don't
control we will agree to any condition placed upon this regarding
our future use of it.
Michael: In that context would you agree that in the event that
Lot 1 owner has abandoned his rights that you won't re-activate
them?
Sunny: We will not re-activate them for purposes of access.
There is a current utility easement here which we don't control.
It is a sanitary sewer and there has been some discussion as to
how to link the pedestrian access which you require as part of
1010 across Gordon bridge and then up to 82 or to Riverside
Drive.
Jim:
That
have
Why is the building envelope so large on the center one?
one could mitigate some of the staggering problems that you
better than any of the other lots.
The problem is there is a potential with that building envelope
being that large for there to be no staggering occurring. That
they will be right in a row creating the problem. If that
particular building envelope which is the one which I see that
gives you the opportunity to mitigate these problems were reduced
then even at the worst possible scenario you would have some
staggering going on.
Graeme: Do you have the figures on exactly how square feet could
be built on each of these 3 envelopes?
Sunny: The original application Lot 2A was 17,519 sqft. The
minimum size is 15,000. Lot 9 was 20,368. The FAR on 2A is
4,650 allowable which we have agreed to limit to 4,000. Lot 9
was originally 4,744. And even though we have increased the
land area and we are restricting it below that to 4,500 and Lot
2B we are saying that we will limit it to 4,500.
Jim: Is there a public right of way or view along these rivers?
Cindy: On the opposite side of the stream there will be a trail-
-the ute City Park Trail.
7
PZMll.8.88
Jim: So that is going to tend to support your concerns about the
impacts and proximity to the river.
Cindy: My concern of the river cor ridor is not developing that
lower area is that we don't encroach into that river frontage now
or in the future.
Graeme: I agree with Jim that if that middle building were set
back it might help stagger things and create a wall of houses
along the river. But from what my sense of what that lot 2A is,
building that big a house just seems just way out of whack to me.
And while if you go down the bank with piers, you don't have to
excavate down there but you are essentially putting the
vegetation in shade and you are having a house that is kind of
falling in the river. I am sure you could make it look better
than that.
I would think that Lot 2A would really have to be dramatically
restricted in terms of the FAR for me to feel more comfortable
with it.
Cindy: Presently there is only the ability for one house to be
on Lot 2 of the Gordon parcel. The request is for subdivision in
order to have more but as far as the land area and what they
could be requesting under subdivision right is that they could be
requesting 4 new lots. And what we really see here is 1 new lot
because we are taking a development right from the Callahan with
the potential for 2 more.
Welton: On Lot 2A I had visions of one of those hillside
California houses on stilts pushed out onto the river and
creating a cavern for the existing vegetation to try to survive
within. So in my opinion on Lot 2A either the FAR goes down
quite a bit or 2A gets re-configured with Lot 9 moving into Lot
2B so that 2A becomes more a reasonable building site. Right now
I don't think it is a reasonable building site for anything near
as big as what they are proposing.
Roger: I agree with you all on that Lot 2A.
the FAR or re-configure that lot. I don't find
way it is.
Severely restrict
it acceptable the
Jasmine: I agree with the other members of the Commission that
the size and configuration of Lot 2A and like Jim, what I am
really concerned about is that what you are doing is selling lots
and that there is no real opportunity for us to prescribe a
certain style that might mitigate some of the impact of where a
particular house is located.
8
r
PZMll.8.88
We got very badly burned on 1010 ute Avenue because of what our
understanding of what was going to go in and what actually went
in was so very different and so very disturbing to a lot of us.
I also share Cindy's concern about the river front. To me the
whole problem with this PUD is that you are taking a piece of the
PUD and saying "Let us do this now and then we will worry the
rest of it later". That is contrary to the whole idea of what a
PUD is supposed to be.
I think that from a community point of view and from the
Commission's point of view a PUD in this area--the primary
concer n would be the preservation of the area right along the
river, the vegetation, the river views, etc. I would much rather
see an entire PUD or some commitment from the applicant that
whatever the lots or building envelopes are that a certain amount
of dedicated land would be preserved for the frontage. I don't
see any of that here. This piece meal approach is going to cause
us a lot more problems down the line. I would like to see what
this entire build out would be.
Jim: Lot 9 has the ability for you to mitigate the problem of
the other 2 lots on both sides of it. So if you would make some
attempts of restricting the building envelope of 9 then I have no
problem with 2A as long as we address the size of the structure
going there. Lot 9 is mitigating the impacts of the other 2
proximity lots.
Wel ton: Another suggest ion-- it seems like 4 of us have real
problems with Lot 2A. One of the conditions suggestion of the
Planning Office was that the portion on the opposite end of this
whole piece of land be deed restricted to remain open. If 2A is
such a difficult site to do anything on maybe that is the area
that should be deed restricted to remain open space as part of
the PUD. Lot 9 gets moved to the left and the 3 lots happen
basically where Lot 9 and Lot 2B are now and Lot 2A becomes open
space.
Roger: I like that basically. There are 2 ways of going at it.
One is moving 9 to the right giving 2A more room around the
corner for developable site there. Another way is the way Welton
configured it and not giving that piece to 9 but dedicating it as
a non-developable site which PUD wise could be for area wise to
be given credit to the other side.
Jim: Those are certainly possibilities but before we redesigning
these lots I think that 2A at 17,000sqft is a suitable area to
accommodate some residence. The way they have got it going you
have development in one section and giving the City the
opportunity to get a larger portion in this other area restricted
so you have a contiguous flow.
9
PZMll.8.88
Sunny: The property has an allowable density subject to approval
of some subdivision PUD application. We can't agree to a
reconfiguration that arbitrarily glves away a couple of the
development rights without even an attempt to try and figure out
a way to achieve it.
MOTION
Jasmine: I think that the applicant has been made aware of our
concerns and maybe we should table this and let the applicant
come up with a design that would take into account some of our
concerns.
And I so move to table this as a special meeting to November 15.
Roger seconded the motion with all in favor.
TEEN CENTER
Tom: The conceptual SPA with City Council--the Council made a
couple of findings regarding the youth center. The found that
the youth center was an important community facility and that
there was an opportunity now to get a site in place so that they
could start construction next year. Council also was very
concerned that the parking facility had a potential of being a
dead space and that the youth center offered the potential of
having some captive activity on the plaza.
Based on that direction, staff, consultants and the youth center
committee took a look at different sites that might work on the
parking garage. The solution was to do a 2 rental facility in
the location that you see now to reduce the size of the footprint
from 5,000 to approx imately hal f of that. Thi s st ill would
provide access directly to the plaza. It would allow the youth
center to happen either concurrent or independent of the parking.
And it would essentially the theme of the transportation center
is brought across so that it looks like an integrated whole.
Dave: The way it integrates--here is a section--you see the shed
roof lines up and becomes part of the configuration of the
building at large. It is a 1 story building from the plaza with
the main entrance right off the plaza and a secondary entrance
into the dance hall. So we feel it has the fewest negative
effects and the most positive of any of the various locations of
which we have tried 4 or 5 different siting locations. This can
happen independently, in parallel or as a single project. It
doesn't have to be tied to the construction of the garage.
10
PZM11.8.88
Tom: what we are looking for tonight is essentially conceptual
approval that the location is right. The youth center would come
back just like the library is for precise detailed drawings and
design. We would go to Council with this as well.
Jeff Evans: Suggested moving the teen center over 15 feet so
that we could eliminate a grading problem and separate
pedestrians from bicycles.
There was more discussion between Jeff, Dave, members of the
public and Commission concerning the location of the teen center.
Tom: One of our perceptions is that we would get a usable
building site off of Spring behind the jail. I think Bleeker
alley compromises that totally. In order to try to get the
number of parking spaces we committed to in the election, we have
got that parking lot in front of the teen center too. These are
things we are going to be talking about on the 29th and the 13th.
From the conceptual point of view I think we can say that that
seems to be an appropriate location for the teen center and then
deal with making that building site work.
Jeff: I am saying that in the process of the shuffling, the
shuffling has to include a few impacts off site.
Tom: So from the SPA's conceptual direction what we are asking
for is approval of that location and if it has to be moved around
to make things work and precise then it has to be moved around.
Jasmine: I don't see how we can make that determination tonight
because obviously it is going to effect all of the other things
that are going on in the SPA and I really don't want to get
railroaded into saying "Yes, that is fine now". I don't think it
is appropriate to do it at this point without seeing the entire
SPA.
Tom: I am not trying to railroad anything. I am not trying to
put pressure on anybody. We are just trying to meet Council's
requirements so that we can move forward with the project. So if
you want to table it and come back on the 29th with more
information, we can do that.
Welton: Conceptually I think if it is moved 5 ft or 10 ft one
way or the other way conceptually that seems to be a good place.
And I am comfortable with voting that way tonight. This is
conceptual and generally it works with me.
Roger: Conceptually it works for me.
11
,.,
PZM11.8.88
Graeme: This is the first time I had anything to do with this
and I couldn't make an intelligent comment.
welton: If we had a vote it would be 2 to 1 with one abstention.
The vote was 2 in favor, 1 opposed and 1 abstention.
Meeting was adjourned.
Time was~., :.. I
Jaii~1Uc.~~-Cierk
12