Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19890502 if .xeJ '. / RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 2. 1989 Chairman Welton Anderson called the meeting to order at 4:30pm. Answering roll call were Graeme Means, Bruce Kerr, Michael Herron, Roger Hunt, Jasmine Tygre and Welton Anderson. Jim Colombo and Mari Peyton were excused. COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Roger: It has come to my attention that 2 people who live in the red house by Castle Creed Bridge cannot vote because that little parcel which is apparently surrounded by City is not annexed. I think we should take action to correct that. MOTION Roger: I move to take action to annex that parcel as soon as it is practical on the part of the Planning Office. Michael seconded the motion. Welton: Doesn't the owner have to want to be annexed? Tom: I think we have some ability if the City surrounds the parcel or the parcel is below "X" acres I think it is 60 acres the City has the ability to do that. Graeme: If the owners don't want it I don't see any reason to do it. Roger: It came to City for approvals quite a few years ago. I know it came before us. Tom: I will see what information I can get on this and bring it back to you. Graeme: I was just around 1010 Ute area and the Gordon/Callahan Subdivision and walked down the subdivision there and I would just like to say that I am glad that City Council overruled us and took one of those building envelopes away from the river. It is just 50 crowded down there I personally think we made a mistake in approving that extra envelope. Planning was right all along in my opinion. Jasmine: I agree. Michael: Last week the Aspen Times and the Times Daily reported action that wasn't taken at this meeting and I thought it was interesting because they didn't even have a representative present. I figure somewhere along the line they either have a PZMS.2.89 carnac invitation or a crystal ball. being present at the meeting last reported as taken was not action that I don't week and we took. remember anybody the action they MINUTES MARCH 7. AND APRIL 18. 1989 Bruce made a motion to approve the minutes. Michael seconded the motion with all in favor. CONSENT AGENDA Roger made a motion to adopt the consent agenda. Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor. RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL ASPEN GREENS PUD 'l'om: Happenings since conceptual review: The Housing Authority is still endeavoring on this public process and they have a 30 member steering committee made up of people throughout the community. In general the program of this project has been changed from one of off-seasonal residents to a mix of permanent and seasonal residents. This dovetails in with what is going on with the Marol t. What we want to do is let you know of what is going to Council next Monday night. I have added a final condition--condition #11 which give the P&Z the ability to back track on their conceptual approval. If there is something that comes up in final that you don't feel comfortable with, you have the ability to flush it out. Because we are fast-tracking this, we are still proceeding with Council when normally we would probably come back to P&Z. We know that P&Z wants to get this thing in the ground and 50 does the Housing Authori ty and so does City Council. So we are going to continue with the public hearing on the 8th. Peter Dobrovolny: On April 17th we had a long meeting with the steering committee that for the first time looked at both the Marolt project and the Aspen Greens project. Later on in that meeting the Marolt design team and the PCPA seemed to be getting close to an agreement that would allow some employee housing to be built on a portion of that property--4.3 acres at this point. That pretty much satisfies the seasonal needs which the MAA has 2 PZMS.2.89 for 300 students and that is a very good location for them since it is close to town. So they didn't see that they had as much need for seasonal use of the Red Roof Inn project as before. The consensus that developed out of that meeting was that the existing building would continue to serve seasonal housing needs- -meaning MAA students in the summer time and seasonal resort workers in the winter time. And that the expansion be permanent housing. Those results were then presented to City Council that evening which concurred with the findings that had been developed throughout the day and said "Fine, go ahead.... We came back to City Council and said that the design that we presented in conceptual that although it was very good from the flexibility and convertability standpoint, wasn't really the best 2-bedroom for permanent housing design. Rattling of maps here. Tom: This application addresses only the expansion. Roger: So the expansion is going to be all permanent housing? Peter: Right. Roger: I have got problems with that right off the bat here without seeing other things because this has a major effect on impacts on the highway, the number of people who are going to be out there using the highway, transportation, whether it is imperative to have RFTA service that area at the level that we had anticipated. Tom: The applicant is committed to addressing those concerns. I realize that transportation is going to be the critical issue here. They are responding to the Council's direction. Roger: I would suggest having discuss this with everything playing a ping pong game where other hand is doing. a j oint meeting on the table. one hand is not wi th Council Right now we knowing what and are the Tom: I would encourage you to come Monday night if that is the feeling of the P&Z. The steering committee is a Marolt/Red Roof Inn steering committee. In working with the MAA, they determined that the needs of the MAA can be most effectively met on the Marolt with utilizing the existing facility at the Red Roof and not needing 3 PZMS.2.89 the expansion. There is a lot of pressure from members of the community to do some permanent housing in this mix and essentially what fell out of that was agreement between the MAA and people on the steering committee that this project here should be a mix of seasonal and permanent rental and the Marol t would be the total seasonal effort. That was presented to Council on the night of the 17th and Counci 1 conce pt ually bought into that. It was a consensus of that steering committee that has been involved in this that looking at both pieces together that they came to the conclusion that a mix of seasonal and permanent was most appropriate here and then the Marolt would handle the 150 winter seasonal and 300 summer seasonal. Roger: So in effect we are losing numbers as far as seasonal employees by this. I think of seasonal employee as the lower echelon. If this stays still within the cost of the lower echelon employee although he may be a permanent year round employee that is one thing. Tom Stevens: We just got done running numbers on it today. 'l'here are 2 different 2 bedroom configurations in this. The largest 2 bedroom would rent for between $750 and $800. 'l'he smallest 2 bedroom which is 700sqft would rent for about $675.00 to possibly $700.00. 'l'he studios will rent for approximately $375.00. Michael: I am not sure I understand Roger's concern. We are always going to have some people who aren't seasonal there. Is this going to effect the number of people who are going to be on this par cel? Peter: The original design as presented to you in conceptual was going to be 2 buildings that were seasonal housing and 2 that were permanent. That was the direction from the steering committee and the Housing Authori ty. That was a total of 92 bedrooms. In the current configuration which is all 2 bedroom apartments and 8 studios, there are 84 bedrooms. So there are actually fewer bedrooms than there were before. However, it is 4 more than we could have accomplished had we stayed with the design we had before. Roger: The difference is who you are trying to accommodate here. Are you trying to accommodate families or are you trying to accommodate employees? And if so which level? It looks like it is getting pretty high now compared to the figures we saw for the 4 PZMS.2.89 dorm or the bedroom concept. Those prices are up in thi s conf igur ation. Tom: You are r igh t. I think the bedroom cost was about $275 to $300 on the dorm configuration. It is a little more costly. We are still going to be able to house 400 summer seasonal MAA students if the Marolt goes through including this and the Marolt proj ect. And in the winter time we will be housing 50 rooms here and then 150 at the Marol t. So it is 200. It is not as many as we intended but it is not a great decrease either. There seemed to be a lot of concern in the input that was received from the doing some permanent resident housing. permanent resident housing out here. Peter: One of the things that was accomplished is that in that meeting PCPA and Marolt got to the point where PCPA conceptually agreed that they would not continue with their suit against use of the Marol t property for housing if the amount that was going to be used was reduced to this 4.3 acre site. So that is a step forward. the communi ty based upon steering committee about The City should do some Roger: What I am not seeing is the Marolt project in front of me to see where I get the benefits of that trade-off. COnceptually I like the idea of seasonal employee housing and music students at the Marolt property. But I don't know what give and take is going on between PCPA and whoever is dealing with the Marolt housing as to what we are going to get out there. I still want accommodations for the music students and seasonal employees. And I want them in sufficient numbers to make an effect in this community. Now all of a sudden I am seeing 92 dropped to 84 in this area and the cost per bed going up. That is not the di rection I want to see. I woul d pr ef er keeping it units in a flexible mode because we don't know how fickle the PCPA or the City of Aspen is going to be. Can we accommodate this by the time it comes to final so we can make some decent decisions on this project? Are we going to have some input about the Marolt? 'l'om: There is going to be a conceptual submission this month. Graeme: I tend to agree with the direction the project is taking. I don't mind a few less people if they have better accommodations. I think it is important that they have a nice place that they can go home in the evening and relax rather than have a crowded condi tion where they have got to stay out in the bars all night because they don't want to go home. Bruce: I totally agree wi th that. about the impacts of transportation. I share Roger's concerns We will look at those at 5 PZMS.2.89 final anyway. And I am much more in favor in having permanent residents there if we are accommodating the seasonal MAA people at the Marolt and part of them at Red Roof. I am happy with what is happening. Michael: I don't have a problem with the change. Jasmine: I think the change could be beneficial. I share Roger's concern about the ultimate cost of the rental units which is the a problem that I have had with employee housing all along. We have talked about trying to do an update on some kind of wage survey so we have some kind of idea of how much money people are making because relative to million dollar condominiums--$800 for a 2 bedroom apartment is cheaper than what you can get on the free market. But if that means $400.00 a person, what are people making and how affordable is that? It is all well and good to say these are going to be very nice and very attractive but if most people can't afford to live in them, what have we accomplished? I think until you get some information about the wage levels in this town then you really are going to have a problem with all of your employee housing. I think that the employee housing guidelines are not and have not been realistic for the last 5 years. Tom: That is a final. We have of information. survey. piece of information we could try to get for got the computer software to tabulate this kind I can talk to Jim and see if we can do a wage Jasmine: It is something that has got to be part of our overall affordable housing planning because if we are talking about affordable hosing, no matter what we call it, we have to make sure that it really is affordable. They were going to put a combination of free market and employee units on the Marolt many years ago. They had guidelines for the employee housing that were just ridiculous. Nobody was going to be able to afford to live in them. And the developers said "Yes, but these are going to be really nice,... I said ,"Yes, they are going to be really nice but no employee can afford to rent them, much less buy them,". We need to be very, very careful to avoid that kind of trap here. 'l'om: I suggest we have language about a wage survey in the conditions for final SPA. Jasmine: Other than that I think the direction of this is fine. I have always favored a mix of permanent and seasonal employees out there. That is a very good plan assuming that we do have the 6 PZMS.2.89 appropriate housing for the seasonal workers and we can keep the cost of the apartments within a reasonable level I am not opposed to having lesser density. Peter: My commitment would be to make that work too. One of the vagaries at this point is that we are continually still redesigning the project and what is it going to cost to build this thing. We need to get on with that aspect of it because I have confidence if the Housing Authority doesn't accept it that we can build it for less than they think we can. So the difference is in the neighborhood of 10% which is $60 or $70 a month which makes a big difference. That bridge needs to be crossed soon. Tom Stevens: Ther ear e a lot of assumptions that have to be made. When you make an assumption, you have to shoot high. As you get into the design and refine that and get it down to a detail where it can be bid the price comes down. But right now we are having to make quite a few assumptions on this thing and we are shooting high. Welton: I am in general consensus with the rest of the Commission. As long as the dormitory style seasonal housing is going to be addressed on the Marolt development and those workers don't get the short shrift in our employee housing planning then I feel comfortable with this change. The rental schedule for this is a critical consideration. But I don't want to hold up the approval for this because we don't have a Marolt yet. Everything doesn't have to be concurrent. It can happen sequentially as long as we know something is in the works we don't have to hold up what is further along in the works. Peter: In the new floor plan each one of the dwelling units now faces essentially south. It faces towards the parking lot and provides access from that side. Each one has its own individual access. The units are a little bit larger than they were before. The bedroom areas was reduced just slightly. 'l'hat additional space was put into the living room, dining room and kitchen space to make that a little more liveable. A total of 8 studio unit s wer e al so incorporated into it. Par t of the geometric configuration came from trying to find a I-level apartment layout that was most efficient in terms of circulation. 'l'hese are L shaped units here which reduced the internal circulation as much as possible. These little cutouts provide light and ventilation for the bedrooms in the corner here. And then into a portion of that L is stuck a studio unit. Then on the ends are a longer unit so there are a total of 38 2-bedroom 7 PZ M5 .2 .89 apartments and 8 studios for a total of 84 bedrooms at this point. At all the upper levels because of the roof slopes involved, there was space there for free which could be made into loft space above those units. 'l'hey are actually a little bit smaller set back a couple feet from the lower floor so that a small deck can be built without shading the windows on the lower floor. But that loss of space compared to the lower floor is more than made up for by putting the loft in the upper units. 'l'hat adds about 1,300sqft to the project. They should not be construed as 3rd bedrooms because there may be difficulty in achieving emergency egress from them but they can be used as additional living space, study space or whatever. It also makes those upper units, from a 1 iving standpoint, much more desirabl e. Site coverage is a little bit more than in the previous version. The difference is about 3,500sqft of more ground coverage with these buildings. That is mainly because it is all 2 level now ra ther than 2 and 1/2 1 evel s. 'l'he total si te coverage bef ore was 53%. It is now 55%. 'l'he usable open space for these units however is in fewer pieces than it was before. Before we have little bits and pieces all over the place. 'l'here were about 10 of them all together. We have now concentrated that into 10 spaces, 2 major entry courts here, a large area back here which can be children's play area. Then a couple of other somewhat smaller areas here. So we are down to about 5 open space spaces around the buildings which should be more usable than the open space was before. Bruce: If you are considering a children's play area, are you considering fencing? Peter: That is something we should consider, yes. Another thing that this design does accomplish sort of indirectly which was not necessarily a design goal but there are very few windows presented towards the golf course to catch errant golf balls. There were more of those before and berming should reduce that somewhat. Roger: Is there lof t space in the top studio units? Peter: I am going to try to accomplish that. It would be a small space but usable as storage if nothing else. MOTION Roger: I move to adopt resolution 89-6 with amendments-- condition #2 under final I would suggest in the parenthesis 8 PZMS.2.89 signage, caution or traffic light. And condition #8 we won't have to do anything with at this point. But condition HI, I would like to indicate in there that a lot of this depends upon what in reality can happen in the Marolt as to our final review of this. So I would like words to that indicated in Hl. And the addition of #12 which is a wage survey. Michael: Last meeting on this we were specific that we wanted a traffic light. I would be more comfortable leaning toward that so that we don't come back with a sign because I don't see how a sign is going to work. Roger: A lot depends on what is going to happen there. It is going to be one thing if you are going to have a lot of music students. It is going to be another thing if it is going to be permanent residents using their automobile. Michael: They are still going to have that same problem of getting out of there. Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor. ZONING OF LOWER SMUGGLER ANNEXATION AREA PUBLIC BEARING Tom: Made presentation as attached in records. Michael: On the Centennial with the PUD overlay is there a way we can specifically adopt restrictions that were put on the PUD as adopted by the County which was the FAR restriction? Tom: I talked with Fred Gannett about that and he said those just rollover automatically to the City so they are still in effect. Michael: Mr. Moran's problem is similar with what Mr. Laruski's problem was. It seems to me that we resolved Mr. Laruski by giving him a different-- Tom: We created the R-6A zone district. Michael: Which was a higher density zone district for him. Tom: Which allowed duplexes on--which really didn't address Mr. Laruski's problem. It addressed the problem of the William's Addi tion lot sizes where they were 500ft short of being able to do duplexes. Michael: I would like to see us be consistent because I think Mr. Laruski was concerned about the same thing that Mr. Moran is 9 PZ M5 .2 .89 <,,- concerned about and that was the surrounding neighborhood had changed and we tell him that he had to wait and come up with a specific plan or did we change the zoning to accommodate. Tom: What we did was we tried to develop zoning that maintained the existing development pattern in William's Addition with the R-6A. Bruce: What did we end up zoning? Tom: R-6A. Bruce: The same as the Williams Addition? Tom: Yes. He is part of the Williams Addition. Roger: You mentioned amended RMFA for that Hunter Creek portion. What effect does that amendment to the RMFA have back on Lone Pine and the Hunter Longhouse. Tom: The effect that it had is making this conforming and creating a big potential increase in FAR at Centennial and we thought that the thing to do was instead of having 300 non- conforming units here that we would put the PUD overlay and with the PUD agreement that in the intense section of the ordinance, we would identify and consider this built out. Bill Dunaway: On that Mountain View wouldn't that have to abide by Ordinance 47 and Ordinance 7 when it comes in? Don't they provide for more employee housing? Tom: They will vest in the County. That was the arrangement that was made between the developer and the City and the County. They will go through the review process in the COunty. Bill: But the County doesn't have any requirements for employee housing on apartment units. Tom: That is just the deal make annexation agreements. because it only deals with aren't demolishing anything. that is there which is a affordable units out of 8. that was cut on that one. You can Ordinance 47 wouldn't apply here demolition of multi-family. They They will keep the existing unit duplex now. They are creating 2 Jim Moran: That doesn't fulfill all the employee housing requirements. They are putting 2 on site and making an addi tional cash- in-lieu. 10 PZ M5 .2 .89 -_. Welton opened the public hearing. Jim Moran: I own this parcel that is labeled R-15A. Our position is that it is the character of the neighborhood that should determine the zoning and while I wouldn't have come in to ask for rezoning under the present circumstances since you have to deal with it our position is that our parcel ought to be RMFA because that is the character of the neighborhood. I don't know how many of you have been up there recently but the character that you get when you stand in our yard or driveway is I am surrounded by apartment buildings. That is just what has happened. People come up and say ,"Gee, what a nice house but too bad it is in the middle of all these apartments.... So eventually that tract is going to have to be developed. I understand what Tom has said but this is our house and I don't want to have to come up with a development plan for that property. When we can't live there anymore, I would just as soon leave. I don't want to talk about tearing it down and doing something like this or converting it into a duplex or doing something else. You on this Commission have heard talk about spot zoning and usually it is done a different way. But it seems to me that we are the spot in this zoning plan. We are the low density spot in the middle of a high density neighborhood. The present FAR on our house is .09 to 1. Probably more important is the density. The Centennial density is about 14.1 dwelling units per acre. Hunter Creek is about 16 dwelling units per acre. Mountain view will be 8 dwelling units per acre. We are 1 dwelling unit per acre with a potential I suppose for 3 dwelling units if we were to chop it up into single family lots. I know it is a nice place to live. It doesn't bother me because we lived there while Centennial was buil t. But someone coming in looking at trying to preserve our values and selling it to someone it just is a single family residence in an apartment neighborhood. And that is the reaction you get. I think that as long as you are zoning if you have confidence that RMFA zone fits in this neighborhood then it certainly should be applied to our tract. MOTION Michael: I make a motion that we approve the rezoning as suggested by the Planning Office with the exception of the Moran parcel and that we zone that RMFA. It seems to me it would make II PZMS.2.89 ... no sense to leave his lot abandoned or an island in the middle of all that development. Bruce seconded the motion. Graeme: There might be a better solution. We are looking for affordable housing sites. There might be some sources of money coming for that and I am wondering if we should explore the possibility of making it an affordable housing site at some time and in some way re-imbursing Mr. Moran. Michael: I think we can always do that. We can buy it if the City has the money or the Housing Authority has the money. Of course with the zoning we are putting on it that would give us the flexibility to put the most amount of employee units on it. Graeme: It would cost a lot more too. Welton: It would be rezoned. Michael: The City Attorney after hearing you say that. you can buy it better. would probably just about rollover You can't down zone it now so that Roger: I think this is not the time to rezone that parcel. 'l'herefore, I cannot support this motion. It goes right against the guideline which says ,"Apply zoning to annex areas which generally maintains the same development rights within the City as with unincorporated areas,". And this just flies in the face of that. I would have no problem if there was a development before us that would probably want rezoning of this. During annexation phase I feel it is the wrong time to do this. On 50% of his surrounding area it is virtually open space--R-15 and R-30 so I don't agree with the argument that it should be rezoned at this time. Jim: The wonderful thing about the City Land Use Code is that you can find support for any conclusion you wish to make. Another policy is the City Land Use Regulation should be oriented to maintaining the character of a neighborhood. And the character of this neighborhood is now multi-family. And so for every action or reaction, for every conclusion you want to make there is justification in the code for doing so and the idea that I am surrounded by open space--I wish you would come up and sit in my driveway. You don't get that feeling even though on a plat plan that i sn' t oriented to show how the land fall s. I can see why you could come to that concl usion. But that is not the feeling you get when you sit there. 12 PZMS.2.89 Graeme: Tom, why do you seem amenable to accepting a rezoning with a plan but not without one. Tom: I don't want to give the impression that there is any reliance the Planning Office says that it should be rezoned. What we are looking at is that as Mr. Moran has stated there has been a change in the neighborhood and that might be justification for rezoning but as Roger said to do it at annexation in the absence of a development plan gives us a little less control than if it were to be rezoned concurrent with a development plan. So we feel that it is in the best interest of the community to be rezoned concurrent with approvals for development on that site. Jasmine: It has always been a policy of annexation that upzoning is not necessarily a part of the annexation process and that we want to be very careful to not give the impression that let everybody get annexed into the City so that they can upzone their property. In the case of this applicant that is not obviously what you are trying to do. I am very sympathetic to your situation but I think that it would be setting an unfortunate precedent for any future annexations to grant an automatic upzoning. Michael: I don't think it is upzoning. It is reality zoning. The Morans have lived there and watched their neighborhood fall apart around them by virtue of all the work that the County did and the City did with Hunter Creek and with Centennial. Now you are saying that although you didn't pay attention to--nobody paid attention before to what they were, now we shouldn't pay attention to them ei ther. And we have now put them in the situation where they are by making all the surrounding area a high density area and then turn around and say that they shouldn't be just like their neighbors I think is ignoring where reality is. And it is not the reality that they created it is the reality that they found themselves in and I am sure that they opposed. Graeme: Can this parcel be developed at all? what is the potential for that? Tom: Lot 6 is owned by the County and it has been a parcel that has been identified as a potential site for affordable housing. It was discussed about a year and a half ago and sort of put on the back burner as being not appropriate at the time because there was a lot of neighborhood protest. Specifically Building 13 of Hunter Creek. Jim: They were talking about 11 6,000sqft lots on which housing in the $150,000 neighborhood range would be created. The problem 13 PZMS.2.89 is the access. The plan provided for creating a sewage pumping station down there for all the houses and pumping the sewage up to the Centennial main and Spruce Street. You can't get from that land to Spruce Street either. Tom: At one time it was looked on as single family detached housing--somewhere around II units. That didn't get a lot of support and they are looking at it again but nothing has come forward yet. Jasmine: I think that Mickey's point is very well taken. 'l'he change in the neighborhood and the fact that this is an unusual situation. Mr. Moran has been impacted by projects that were not of his volition and that were done for public good which makes me rethink what my statement was before. My concern was the setting of a precedent in a situation like this. I would be much more willing to go along with your recommendation as to reality if we can establish some way of making sure that this does not become a precedent for other situations which would not be analogous to this. Tom: The staf f' s point of v iew was that the communi ty was probably best served and has the most security if we wait until the development application comes in for rezoning. But we have the wherewithal to establish your thinking on this. Welton: I feel uncomfortable about creating this precedent that you are trying to now figure out a way to not make a precedent but make a one-time event. 'l'he motion was to rezone Hunter Creek RMFA, Centennial RMFA PUD and Mountain View RMFA and Moran parcel RMFA. Roll call vote: Graeme, yes, Bruce, yes, Michael, yes, Roger, no, Jasmine, yes, Welton, no. Motion passed. ASPEN YOUTH CENTER CONCEPTUAL SPA/REZONING PUBLIC BEARING Welton opened the public hearing and welcomed the young people. Tom Baker: Background. Skip Behrhorst, part of the volunteer group that is here heading the Youth Center application. Back when we were doing the Rio Grande work Skip came in to request a location at the Rio Grande site. At that time we were looking at some space under the library which was also part of the parking facility. When the parking facility went under the library we 14 PZMS.2.89 thought it was some workability there because it would create a space that could be used for parking for the library if things were to go awry in the future. As the Rio Grande plan evolved the parking got pulled out from under the library. So after the parking structure itself was pulled out from under the library the Youth Center idea in conjunction with the library needs didn't work as well. So we were looking for other sites on the Rio Grande parcel for the Youth Center. The Council had been concerned that the plaza on top of the par king structure could become 1 if ele ss wi tho ut som e a cti vi ty there and directed staff to look for sites that allowed the plaza and the Youth Center to work with each other. That is to have the Youth Center either located on the plaza or somewhere so it would have direct access to the plaza. In doing that we looked at 4 different sites. This is down the hillside farther in this location and at the time what that allowed us to do was compress the footprint because we are talking about more than 1 level and it moved it far enough away from the jail 50 that this can still work as a civic plaza architecturally. Out of the 4 sites, through a process of elimination, this is where it was left. There was discussion with City Council and Board of County Commissioners at the time. 'l'here was some informal agreement that that seemed to be a reasonable location understanding that it had to go through the process. Also at that time the City and the COunty were working together to do a joint office building as an annex to City Hall 50 the space wasn't viewed as being really cri ti cal. What the Youth Center is asking for is conceptual approval for SPA. They need a rezoning. The SPA overlay ends at the property boundary. They need to take the SPA overlay. While the entire parcel was zoned public, the SPA overlay ends at the property boundary. At one time the jail was part of the SPA overlay. It was taken out to allow the jail to happen. It seems to staff that it is reasonable and probably mandatory that we take the SPA overlay to include any site for a youth center because part of it is already in the SPA overlay area and that is what we are doing on the site is masterplanning this site. A comment that Youth Center on second choice. P&Z made initially was that they fel t that the the Rio Grande can work but that that was their A preferred location was in the downtown area. 15 PZMS.2.89 In talking to Skip about that what it might revolve around is what is feasible in this community. This may be the only site that is feasible. Staff feels that in general terms having the Youth Center adjacent to the Plaza is a benefit. It is going to create activity on the Plaza which is going to be good for that facility and the community in general. One of the other points that the application states is that they felt that the landscaping could be removed and located around the Youth Center. The City has been forced back on areas of landscaping and we would like to see more intense landscaping effort especially if the facility goes into that place. The other aspect was the maintenance of the restrooms. And in talking with Glenn about that I don't think that is a real issue anymore. I think that staff initially thought that the City was providing land, the County was providing land and they could provide a maintenance staff for the facility. But the restrooms that are being provided are being provided at the Plaza level and it is going to be useful for the community to have that. The restrooms for the parking facility right now are down at the ticket booths. So this is providing something we don't have. And the maintenance issue is not important. Regarding compatibility of the Youth Center on this site is a real tough one. There is a library on this site but what is surrounding the Youth Center is the jail and the parking structure. 'l'hey may not have much choice on where they can locate but it seems that this is not the most desirable location based upon the surrounding land uses. We do want to emphasize that we think the Youth Center is consistent with public interest. SPA REVIEW STANDlUIDS In terms of the SPA review standards--the first standard talks about whether the proposed development is compatible with or enhances the mix of development in the immediate vicinity. While the staff agrees that the Youth Center is providing activity to the site and we are very pleased to see that the architecture steps down into the hillside, we are concerned about the size. When Skip brought the proposal forward based upon the information at the time we were talking about a 4,500sqft to 5,000sqft structure. 16 PZMS.2.89 .- One of the reasons we put this facility on this hillside was that would allow a 2-level facility and reduce the footprint. Now the structure is being proposed not to exceed 6,500sqft. What staff would like to see is some information justifying the size of the facility. Further the staff had some concerns about height. Gary Ross: What is really driving the height of the building is the fact that we should tie very strongly to the elevation of the roof top plaza. Basically what we have is a 1 story building. If you are looking at it from the top of the plaza, it is a 1 story building. The only way to signif icantly reduce the height is to not tie it to the elevation of the roof level. The problem is when you come dow n the hill, the lowest 1 evel of the youth center is still about 8 or 9ft above the level of the Rio Grande. There is almost enough room in there to get a 3 story building height wise. We are building in a somewhat limited slot there. And the elevation from the north and the south is going to tend to be vertical because the site constraints. On the one hand we are trying to maintain 35 feet between the jail and the Youth Center because we have to bring the bike path through there. The building as it is currently drawn I think is about 5,200sqft. Any time we put in an application when we are early on in the design process we like to leave ourselves a little leeway. But I don't think there is any intent to make this a 6,500sqft building. Roger: bypass grade. things on the My maj or concern is what have you done concerning the to guarantee a trolley could operate on that both width, I don't see where you have considered grades, widths and like that as far as a trolley. This has a major bearing footprint of your building. I would require a condition that you make sure that a trolley is operable on those grades, curves and widths. Gary Ross: Our building is as far away if not further than the original one that is on the conceptual. Graeme: I think it can relate to the Plaza without being on the same level. I think if there were a sunken forecourt in here and some stairs that you could drop this whole thing down maybe 5 to 6 feet and also then the lower level would come out at grade and I think that would be a lot nicer than the way it is now. And 17 PZMS.2.89 _ this sort of canyon effect you get with this walkway--I really think the whole thing could be sunk down a lot and still relate well to the PI az a. Gary: We did discuss that option. There was a concern if you depress the upper level of the building the visual contact between kids in the building to activity that is going on on top of the plaza which is going to be what pulls the kids out of there is going to be lost. If you depress that 5ft, the eye level of kids sitting at tables is going to be below the point where they can see what is happeni ng on the roof PI az a. Welton: The only windows that are oriented at all towards the Plaza are oriented over the top of the stair going down to the lower level. I don't see where there is visual connection between the interior of the Youth Center and what is happening on top of the Plaza to begin with. Gary: Based on the limitations in glazing I don't see--that is about a 17ft strip of windows on that side. I do agree with Graeme that that is the only significant way to reduce the height of the building is to depress the entry level. Graeme: If you had a set of stairs going up from the forecourt or whatever and up into the Plaza and that becomes a place where you sit. You maybe go up a half level and there is a couple of benches and a few mor e stai rs. Welton: These windows along here looking through the trees don't seem to have a real integrated context with the Plaza. Graeme: Maybe you could get some skylights or some south light in there and some north views. Skip: It would be helpful to understand your feelings about the height of the building vs. the relationship of the Plaza. Maybe we are dealing with 2 different things. If you are talking about the roof height and that not integrating properly with the rest of the buildings around, I am not sure that by dropping the building that that is going to help. If you are talking about depressing the building so that it goes away regardless of the roof height then maybe that is a different issue. Roger: You have a benef it by lowering the building by in effect lowering that upper terrace and you will have benefits by accommodating a better grade as far as maintaining a trolley 18 ----- PZMS.2.89 - right-of-way through there. constraint to your project. Skip: I think also the constraint is also the entry to the jail. One of the considerations with Bob Braudis was to keep this area open so we have really moved this building down quite a bit which I think helps the concern you have, Roger. That is going to be a major Roger: As long as that is addressed I can deal with it. Welton: Skip, one of the things that has me a little uncomfortable is that all along this design process of the parking structure and the elements that come out to bring people out of the parking structure and up onto Galena Street was that there was a very strong visual access that went down Galena Street that was sort of framed by the elevators and stair towers and now since this other element is being kind of pushed into the equation that maybe I am more comfortable with if it is as quiet and as low as possible. It is sort of blocking that visual access down Main Street that is supposed to work as a-- Gary: The elevator and stair tower here--you have to look through it to even see-- Welton: I have a problem with that too. Gary: It is to the east. It is definitely more constrained. Jasmine: It is canyonie looking--the whole site now. Wel ton: Jasmine. It is forming a consensus now with Roger and Graeme and I think that needs to be looked at. Gary: I think depressing it 4ft in some respects actually--the problem is twofold. The top of the roof closets has gone up higher and higher. When we started working on the library it was at 10l. It is now at 104.6. Whereas the jail elevation is at 100. We could go down to 100 level and basically create a plaza that tied into both the j ail entry and the use area entry. Once we start going beyond that there starts to be some problems because one of the things the parking structure design did not address is the fact that they took out the handicap access to the jail. And that is a fixable problem whether this project goes or not. But that woul d wor k if we went down as much as 4 ft. If we go 8ft we tie into the Rio Grande elevation. PUBLIC COMMENT Melissa Conniff, student: I was just wondering that if it is depressed is it going to be like a basement or a hole or 19 PZMS.2.89 -' something because it won't be inviting for the kids if it is like a hole in the ground. Graeme: Is it more sun or more view that you would miss? Melissa: View, I would think. Welton: It would be something that could have a plaza in front of it big enough so that you could have a couple of steps down to it then a couple of more down to it and not really feel like you are walking down into anything at all. We definitely don't want to have windows up against a concrete wall. Gary Ross: What I would see developed there is a depressed plaza area so that you step down quite a way away from the building. Is there going to be a concern that we are creating an outdoor activity area that is competing with the roof of the parking structure? Welton: Just don't let it compete with the activity area for the jail. Gary: It is definitely going to tie the entry of the Youth Center more to the jail entry than to the parking structure. Tim Whitsitt, Assistant County Attorney: Mark Fuller asked me to attend this evening and give input from the COunty side of this. The County certainly supports the Youth Center. But we have some serious questions about this spot for it particularly as it might relate to the jail. I have to say also that the County has its own questions here because we have an on-going relationship with the City and a commitment to County office space somewhere on this site. If a Youth Center is put there, it would certainly restrict our abilities. Our position on it would be this is a kind of a civic area. We are right at the Courthouse, the current COunty Office building and the jail area. It certainly, to us, is a very appropriate area for another COunty Courthouse annex or County Office Annex and in our view somewhat less so as a Youth Center. Bruce: That relates to my comment. The first condition to conceptual approval is whether this is the best location and before we even talk about the height of the building or whether we ought to sink it 4ft or 6ft, I think we need to resolve whether this really is the location for the Youth Center. I am all in favor of a Youth Center. I have 2 youngsters who are going to be wanting to use it in a very few year s. But I have some real serious questions about this location. 20 " PZMS.2.89 ...... Skip: In response to that. We have looked at a lot of different locations downtown prior to even having the kids do a survey. The availability of space downtown is non existent. And if it is available it is very expensive. It is something we could not afford as a non-profit type of facility. More importantly we had a survey that the kids did--all the kids in high school, middle school, communi ty school and the Aspen Country Day School. This incl uded what they wanted in it, what hours of operation and addressed specifically where it should be. And we had questions as to whether it should be at Snowmass, the Airport Business Center or downtown. This is the location they fel t was the best. So we are trying to respond to what they want. Because if it is going to be successful it is going to be successful because they will be using it. And it is a place they want to be. Welton asked for public input concerning the location. David Mitchell, 7th grade at Aspen Middle School: First of all I believe this is an excellent location for the Youth Center. First of all there is a park right beside it where kids can play soccer, football and have a good time right there in the area. Also the small park in the center there where kids can go play around and have a good time. Then the Youth Center is also by the library where kids can go in and read and do some learning activities. So this is in a very good location for kids to prosper. Judy Hill, Mother: I also think this is an excellent location. In addition to the other things that have been mentioned-- particularly it is a good spot because of the transportation area. The kids won't be trekking allover town getting to buses. I think that is real valuable. Welton then read into the record a negative letter. The signature was not legible. (Attached in record) Karen Minette, Mother: I would like to know why that person didn't survey the young people rather than adults. There is a history for youth centers in this community but when you look at them they weren't really youth centers. There was a pizza parlor at the bottom of the Jerome that was open to the public. The kids didn't feel comfortable there. It wasn't their own hangout. 21 PZMS.2.89 _, I have been working with the kids for 2 years on this project and I ask kids when I am out at the high school or at the Middle School and have never had 1 young person tell me that they do not wish to have a hangout that is their own in the community in which they live. These kids have been working on this project for 2 years. They have done a survey. They have told the community what they would like to see happen. 'l'hey have attended Council meetings. They have attended P&Z meetings. The support from the young people is there. If we could have some concrete objections from adults wi th names we would like to try to overcome them as we are concerned about adults as well. I think this is a great location and I hope it doesn't get fouled up just because of politics. Dean Smith, 7th grade, Aspen Middle School: I have talked to a lot of my friends and I told them what was going to be put in the Youth Center--the game room, the dance hall. And they were really excited about that because it would be their own place to hang out. I would like to say that this isn't an adult's center. 'l'his is a youth center. I know that a lot of youths are in support of this location and are in support of the activity center going on here. Welton: Actually the proximity of the Rio Grande playing fields and the Plaza and the library all seem to outweigh the unfortunate proximity of the jail and the Courthouse for making this a suitable location in my mind. I think having the library next to the Youth Center is a very good simpotic of uses. It is just unfortunate that the Courthouse is built there. I have never been comfortable satisfying either the City or the COunty's seemingly non-ending need for new office space to house more City and COunty staff as they grow. I can't feel too badly for the County that a potential location for their office expansions might be compromised by this. Michael: against. County's I don't think this is the I am in favor of thi s. co-operation? kind of issue that anybody is What can we do without the Tim: I really can't tell you. I have not been involved in it. I don't believe there is a statement by the COunty saying they are adamantly opposed to our land to be used. Regardless of anybody else' 5 opinion, we have some severe space needs. If nothing else we are paying a heck of a lot of rent into private landlords that if we build our own building we could probably work more efficiently. 22 .,...." PZMS.2.89 - Everybody has heard about all of the plans for a COunty Office Building and we are just not there. I don't know whether a plan will ever get off the ground. Unfortunately this will be one of the better possibilities we have. Michael: I hate to see that this Youth Center has gotten to this point and is not going to go forward because the County is concerned about where it is going to put a possible office building that they have never been able to agree exists between combining the Courthouse Plaza and building back here behind the Ci ty Hall and whatever. I am just concerned as to what we can do tonight to go forward from our standpoint. Tom: What Tim is saying is that this small piece of land is about all that is available for the COunty in the City. And they need to get some comfort level as to other options if this goes away. There is nothing we can do here tonight to give the Youth Center group reliance that this is going to happen. They have to work that out with the County as well as work this out in terms of a lease. I think that it's part of conceptual that they should be required to talk to the Commissioners and get some feel for whether this is a doabl e deal or not. And not spend any mor e money until the Commissioners have spoken. Gary: Wasn't there a memo back in December that identified 2 other options? I think 2 other locations for a Ci tyjCounty office building were identified. 'l'om: There are other locations. On top of the Plaza was one and north of the jail was the other and they are both on City property. So there has got to be some meeting of the minds as to getting everyone's needs met. Tim: The question is is this an appropriate place for the youth center. And there are different opinions on that. Otherwise the County is probably big enough to deal with it' 5 own space problems. Jasmine: I think this is something that should be pursued. Along with a lot of other members of the community I feel very concerned about this location. I don't think it is a good location for a teen center. But when you haven't had any other locations and you have been given a chance to have a location and actually get something done, I can see there is a very great temptation on the applicant's point of view to actually go ahead with this. 23 PZMS.2.89 "-' The problem that we have had wi th the Rio Grande parcel all along is that here is all this land that everybody thinks of as free land. And every entity that has some kind of pUblic orientation whether it is arts, library, music associates, employee housing all want a piece of the Rio Grande. The Rio Grande was bought for transportation and open space. From the City P&Z'S point of view the last and least desirable use for any part of the Rio Grande property was for office space. Given our druthers as to planning concept, teen center wasn't one of the high priorities on there either. I think the problems we are having on the si te--the canyon effect, whether or not to depress the building, all have to do with the fact that there is too much stuff on this site right now and you are plopping another building right in the middle of where a trolley could go, a bus could go, other forms of transportation or just a vista down to the Rio Grande property which was originally planned. It is getting tremendously congested and very unattractive. Michael: I am concerned about the message that we send out. If we are concerned about the things that we are talking about then we are putting the concern for the youth of this community in last place. I would be much more in favor of being able to say that I think that should be in first place and that the concerns of the canyon eff e ct an d the tr 011 ey and all the re st of it should fall apart including a County office building. ,,~''''"'' I think this is probably one of the most important things that I have worked on since I have sat on the Planning & Zoning Commission. I think the youth of community is entitled to a youth center. I think that we shoul d be dedi ca ted to finding a way to put it there--not finding reasons for not putting it there. We have given them what we now consider, along with a lot of other people, a poor site and they still want it. I think we should do everything we can to make sure that they get it. I would like to walk out of here tonight with conceptual approval subject to their ability to be able to get what they need from the COunty and let's go forward. Let's have a Youth Center here so that these people are not going to be 35 years old or older and sitting in our chair and still discussing where we are going to put it. Karen: If we should allow politics or disagreement which I find unusual from the COunty Commissioners since we presented this months ago and they all agreed--so it now is very confusing to me. If we don't make a commitment to our youth I know that there 24 PZMS.2.89 - are a lot of young people in this community who are going to be very distrustful of the adults in the community because we have been working on this project, we have had the model out at the school, we have had kids who have been coming to meetings. They are looking at this as though it is built. So a lot of trust has been established with our young people. Roger: I would prefer the Youth Center in a different place. However I am willing to live with it here providing it can be accommodated within some of the constraints of the property. Primarily the Rio Grande was bought for transportation purposes. You can plunk other things on it so long as it doesn't interfere with the basic purpose of that property. Transportation is one of our key problems. Youth is one of key problems. We have all of these key problems that we have to accommodate so there are trade-offs. But one trade-off I cannot tolerate at this point is plunking something down there that would interfere with a very important transportation link in this community. So if the designer can live within the constraint of the trolley right of way there then I am willing to accept the Youth Center there. Gary: I like the concept of the trolley path through there but I think something that you all need to be careful of is the trolley path that was shown both on that drawing and on ours goes through a piece of land that is not SPA. It is the COunty property and the jail approved plan shows a building right in the middle of it for the jail. The jail approved design shows future expansion all the way across it right up to the property line. I have had a lot of discussions with Bud Eiler and the COunty who was rather disturbed about the fact that the County portion of the land was treated as though it was just a part of everybody else's property. 'l'hey were not contacted on the excavation into that area and some things like that. So I don't deny that there is a real nice concept there. The problem as it stands now is that the COunty could eliminate that path without coming to you all at all. I think we can live with it. I know where the County is coming from. I don't think that it is that they are opposed to the Teen Center as much as they are that that is a site identified a long time ago as expansion and at least in their minds they were told ,"Yes, if we take that away from you there are some other options". And all I think that they want is are-confirmation that there are other options. Bruce: I would like to buy into what Mickey said. That is the parent part of me. I would like to have a place for my kids. If 25 PZMS.2.89 '>., I put on my P&Z hat then I say it is great that the kids want this spot because it seems to be the only available spot. 'l'hey have looked and there is nothing else available. So if it comes down to if we don't have a Teen Center or have one at this location I will probably buy into this location. I don't think it is a good location but at this point in time that is where I am going to have to fall. Graeme: I think Bruce said it well. I don't think it is the best location, but on the other hand it might be the only location. Roger: The way condi tions to be these been met? approval? Tom: My feeling is there are issues about multi-use of the facility. Potential re-use of the facility if the facility fails that you may want the benefit of before you sign off on conceptual. the Planning Office memo is designed there are met prior to conceptual approval by P&Z. Have Or do we apply some of these conditions to That means we would continue the public hearing to a date certain, give the applicants a chance to come back with additional information then make a decision at conceptual. Roger: I would like to take that approach. There is the height and location of the building to deal with and how that relates to the trolley right-of-way. I think we are generally beyond the point of is this the best place. We all agree it is not the best place but the only place. 'l'om: 'l'he use of starting operation at 3:00pm. Can more effective use be made of this facility as a public resource through day care or senior programs or a combination of each. The facility seems large enough to handle that 3:00 to 5:00 that day care would require. And can that be done. Can the applicant provide us with the information. Is that something P&Z desires first of all. Welton: As much flexibility that can be put into the building as possible. But are we talking moving out toddlers toys and stuff? Tom: There is a conflict of time--3:00 to 5:00. Gary: Anything that goes beyond that you take away some of the private ownership of the kids in their own facility if you do something like that. 26 .".".... PZMS.2.89 ...'" Tom: I think the trade-off is that we have got a significant community resource here and how far the applicant is willing to go to make it wor k for the community as well as themselves. Gary: As far as the re-use concept--the building is basically 2 big open rooms on 2 different levels and again it could be subdivided into small offices that could accommodate open plan offices. MOTION Michael: I would like to see if we could move for conceptual approval. Those 2 issues are something we can go back on at final. I think if we come up with conceptual approval it is going to put pressure on the COunty. You talk about the building being a community resource. The kids are a community resource also. And I think it is important that we do something. I don't think there is an issue that we have discussed tonight including attending to the trolley as one of the conditions including re- designing the building if it is possible in a fashion so that it works better, that can't be considered at the final as well as the County's concern as to what will happen if it doesn't continue to be a Youth Center. I move that we approve the conceptual with those additional conditions. Graeme seconded the motion. Roger: I would amend that to read: Basically by final the applicant shall have demonstrated that this bikeway that they have demonstrated there will not be adversely effected with respect to width, grades and curves for use of trolleys by the Youth Center's size and placement. And basically that they are going to have to be responsible for that grade being adequate for operation of trolleys. Michael: Unless the City Council by final has abandoned the trolleys. Graeme: Regarding height: The applicant should realize that this is a really tight site and that they should keep their floor area to the minimum that they can and still make the building wor k. Can't we just direct them to lower the building 4ft? Gary: I have heard what you all have asked for. Tom: I can modify condition #2 and #3 which deal with the size of the structure and the height. I can say :'The applicant shall present design solutions which reduce the height of the Youth 27 PZMS.2.89 Center by approximately 4 to 5ft.... And condition #2 can be modified to say that the applicant shall minimize the siZe of the facility to the greatest extent possible, not to exceed 5,200sqft. Gary: I wanted 5,500sqft. The constraints are there anyway. The Sheriff isn't going to let us go above this line. This line is controlled by the trolley there. There is a parking structure here and there is a road here. And we know that the building has to make a maj or step to step up the hillside. So in order to come up with a design that works in there. Tom: The second condition would read that the appl icant shall minimize the size if the facility not to exceed 5,500sqft. The applicant shall present design solutions which reduce the height of the Youth Center by approximately 4 to 5ft and that would be the height above the plaza. 'l'hat building height itself. 'l'hat is what we are talking about--just taking the building and dropping it down. Skip: It would also be a different roof treatment. Tom: That would be fine. Welton: Or it could be a combination. Roger: I think it should be a combination. Let's leave that open to them. I wasn't enthralled with the picture of that sort of patio sticking out above grade down at the lower Rio Grande level. Maybe they can do something to get down to grade there and get up to grade up above. Skip: Let me make a comment about the patio. That really is a deck. They have kind of an eating area down here and this would be a place where they could have tables and watch activities and be elevated enough to watch what is going on on the ball fields. Tom: Condi tion #4, #5 and #6 all stay the same as they are written. But the heading to those 6 conditions would be ."Conditions to be met prior to conceptual approval by the City COuncil." . The condition regarding grades, etc. concerning the trolley would be a condition to be met at final and the second phase of the approval of the conditions to be addressed as part of the final SPA submission which would include a condition for making the trolley right-of-way wor kabl e and that woul d be condi tion 8. Michael: My motion stands amended. 28 .'-'''''", PZMS.2.89 Graeme: My second is amended but I have to say at this point I can't see the trolley going through there. I think we are kidding ourselves. It doesn't work. And we are either kidding them or we are ki dding us--one or the other. But I can't see it working. From the jail's point of view, from the Youth Center's point of view and from the trolley's point of view--it doesn't work. And if we do approve this then we are going to disappoint somebody. I feel we are putting ourselves in a really bad spot. Jasmine: This is my point initially. And I am going to vote against this motion because I really don't think this is the right place for a Youth Center. Roll call vote: Graeme, yes, Bruce, yes-with reservations, Michael, yes-with no reservations, Roger, yes-with reservations, Jasmine, no, Welton, yes-with no reservations. Motion passed. Meeting was adjourned. Time was 7:12pm. '1 ___~__hJ!/LLl7ll_&J!!#___ Jani~:- carney,~ity DePU~~lerk 29