Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19891017 A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17. 1989 Chairman Welton Anderson called meeting to order at 4:30pm. Answering roll call were Mari Peyton, Roger Hunt, Michael Herron, Graeme Means and Welton Anderson. Richard Compton were excused. Jasmine Tygre, Bruce Kerr and COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Jasmine: I was reading in the paper today that because of possible delays with the MAA housing that they are talking about possibly having the people who have moved into the Red Roof having to move out and the music students come in. And I think that is just a ridiculous idea. STAFF COMMENTS Amy Margerum: city council heard the conceptual PUD on the Marolt property last night. A couple things came up out of that. They did approve conceptually and approved the rezoning conceptually. There are a few issues that remain to be resolved. One is the access into the site. There was discussion of the options for access. Amy: There was no decision on that. We have set up a meeting with the Parks Association with Richard Thomas and anybody else who is interested. It will be at 4: 00 at the Design Workshop Office Friday the 20th of October. There was also discussion at Council regarding putting the parking off site in a remote site which would make it easier for people to take the bus rather than go to their cars. Potentially that site could be used for access to cross country skiing and other trails through there. And it could be used to park there and take the shuttle into Aspen. For now the Marolt property is going forward with the existing site plan that this commission sought. There is a concern that it will cost too much money because they are going to start construction in February and no one starts construction in February because it costs too much. That was a policy decision that was made by City Council that Truscott place would be used for housing if Marolt was not built. Roger: Like Jasmine I was a little upset paper today about the potential of them the Truscott housing. Because when that not presented to us as potential with what I read in the knocking people out of came back to us it was MAA housing anymore. PZM10.17.89 Consequently the design which I found acceptable for employee housing, I didn't find particularly acceptable for MAA housing. So I really feel like insofar as the MAA was a party to all of this mess, and they were certainly in the presentation of all of this, I think they should darned well live with what they finally accepted. If it gets to a recommendation stage before Council my recommendation is that we don't knock employees out of the Truscott housing because it wasn't designed for students. Amy: Last week at city Council we extended the Administrative Delay on the moratorium for demolition on duplex and multi- family. That has been extended to February 27. However we also added an exemption to that. That says that if you replace 100% of the affordable housing on site then you are not bound by that moratorium. The Affordable Housing Zone District is coming up again Monday October 23. There is a little more flexibility on the FAR on the bedrooms than there is on the units. They also agreed on a cap on the exemptions. We agreed that the free market component on the affordable zone district would be exempt from growth management which would be a part of the incentive for people to come in and utilize the zone district. That was set at 14. Jasmine: The thing that has been bothering me about exemptions all along is that you still have to provide a minimum quota. And if you exempt 14 and you go below your quota, you are really compounding your growth rate because you are still going to have to provide a minimum. Amy: We might want to reduce the minimum. There has been some discussion in the past as to why we need a minimum. Maybe we want to re-open that issue and say what should our annual growth rate be and include everything in there in terms of affordable housing. Jasmine: We have had this before where, especially with lodges, you had dipped into future year's allocations. But you still needed to provide a certain minimum for the people who were applying for this year. And so in effect what you were getting was more growth than you anticipated. Wel ton: I think it has to do with the State law. simply shut out any growth at all. You can't MINUTES 2 PZM10.17.89 APRIL 19. 1988 & JULY 18. 1989 Jasmine made a motion to approve the minutes. Roger seconded the motion with all in favor. RESOLUTIONS EUROPEAN INN OPEN SPACE CODE AMENDMENT Leslie: I would like to point out that in the open space code amendment on the second page I added "And the amount of existing structures". As an example the European Inn--you are retaining some of the structures. We want to look at that as far as the special review. Mac Cunningham, representing the European Inn: The only thing that we noticed is #3. It says "Open to view from neighboring properties and not the street but does not meet the definition of open space". And not the street-is really redundant. Roger: It should say "That does not otherwise meet the definition of open space". MOTION Roger: I move to adopt the resolution concerning the open space with a change in the definition of open space as in paragraph 9, Sub. 3 to read "The quantity of unimproved lot area which enhances the site and is open to the view of neighboring properties but does not otherwise meet the definition of open space" . Michael seconded the motion with all in favor. RESOLUTION EUROPEAN INN LP ZONE GMOS ALLOCATION Michael: I am not sure I understand what #10 says. It just doesn't seem to me that it says what you intended it to. Secondly I think we should have language in there that says if they don't get the state approval that those conditions are no longer applicable. I do not understand #11. Leslie: This is per the Fire Marshall's memo that egress and sprinklers need to be provided. Welton: It is required by amendment of the UBC locally. 3 '-"-""-'~."-'~-'--"- PZM10.17.89 Mac: But there is an issue between the Building Department and the Fire Department as to whether the Fire Dept. has a right to unilaterally impose. The Building Dept. has taken the position they do not. Michael: I still did not understand #11. Leslie: Basically if they are going to be renovating the whole building and they are going to be adding new rooms that during the renovation they have to bring everything up to code and that means adequate means of egress. Mari: It seems to me that #11 is redundant. If it is only going to be a condition if it is required by the UBC they have to do it anyway. Do we have to say they have to go by the UBC? If it is required by the UBC it doesn't even need to be a condition. But if we want to condition it on the Fire Marshal's recommendation that is a different matter. Michael: At that meeting we had this very same conversation. We decided that if the code requires it then we didn't need to have that as a condition. I don't think we had any decision made as to whether the Fire Marshal can impose it. Mari: The question is do we require it if the code does not. Michael: I can't believe that they don't have adequate access or exits out of their rooms. Leslie: I like to put in all the referral Comments from all the different agencies and make that all part of the conditions. So when people are going back through the file they can see what was set and agreed to during the presentation and during the scoring. Mari: Then I would take it that condition #11 means that if it is found that the UBC does not require this then the condition does not stand. Roger: And I would start out by saying "The re-development shall provide adequate means of egress" rather than saying "during renovation". MOTION Michael: I make a motion based on the earlier comment that we amend #9 and #10 to provide that in the event we approve all the conditions with the changes that Roger just suggested and that if they can not get the state UBC approval they are not applicable any more. 4 PZM10.17.89 Roger seconded the motion with all in favor. Welton: I think if that is the case then every time we do any kind of approval we should have as one of the conditions "All the construction shall comply with all state, local and federal codes" . ASPEN CONSOLIDATED SANITATION DISTRICT SPA AMENDMENT AND GMOS EXEMPl'ION PUBLIC HEARING Welton opened the public portion of the hearing. Leslie made presentation as attached in record. I would like to add one more condition that they provide a 4x4 utility easement. The utilities down there have not been undergrounded according to the Engineering Dept. for the phone pedestal and the transformer box. That would be #4. Location to be approved by the Engineering Dept. Warren Palmer, representing Aspen Sanitation District: photo showing the existing office building that has units on top of it and the new maintenance facility. left between the buildings is where we are proposing housing units. This is a 2 employee The ni tch to put the Welton asked for public comment. Tom Cardamone, representing ACES: I want to convey our sense of support to this. There was no further public comment so Welton closed the public hearing. MOTION MiChael: I make a motion that we approve the recommendation with the addition of the #4 which Leslie outlined. The 4x4 utility easement to be approved by the Engineering Department. Roger seconded the motion with all in favor. Meeting was adjourned. Time was 5:00pm. /// /) / / Deputy 5