Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19900116 ~x'\) RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 16. 1990 Chairman Welton Anderson called meeting to order at 4:30pm. Answering roll call were Graeme Means, Richard Compton, Bruce Kerr, Michael Herron, Mari Peyton and Welton Anderson. Jasmine Tygre and Roger Hunt were excused. COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Mari: I thought we were supposed to get since the code was redone a kind of hand book for new Planning Commissioners. What they were talking about was a guide for anyone who is involved in review processes to de-mystify the jargon. Leslie: I don't remember it being discussed but I know there is a book like that. It is a generic book that was put out. Mari: They were talking about doing one for the City of Aspen. I think it was for people who come into the Planning Office for them to be able to look at it. Leslie: We plan to come up with something just regarding the housing replacement program and of the various elements that you have with affordable housing. STAFF COMMENTS None PUBLIC COMMENTS None MINUTES AUGUST 15. 1989 Mari made a motion to approve minutes of August 15, 1989. Bruce seconded the motion with all in favor. MINUTES JANUARY 2. 1990 Bruce made a motion to approve minutes of January 2, 1990. Michael seconded the motion with all in favor. \,-,.> PZM1.16.90 CONSENT AGENDA Welton: agenda. I would entertain a motion to approve the consent Herron: I so move. Mari seconded the motion with all in favor. OBLOCK TOWNHOUSES SUBDIVISION CONDITIONAL USE. GMOS EXEMPTION PUBLIC HEARING Welton opened the public hearing. Leslie made presentation as attached in record. Graeme: Why were they excluded? Was it just an oversight? Leslie: I think there is 2 things going on. No one anticipated, I mean, when we look at multi-family development we primarily look at GMP process which through the GMP process we get deed restricted units. Welton: called? Let's be distinct as--what is employee housing now Affordable housing? Leslie: But you have under accessory dwelling units and middle or moderate income. considered mumble is how we allow them as the duplex. the employee housing a grow up-- you have deed restricted to low, Accessory dwelling units are not We do not consider the unit---That GMQS exemption in single family and Herron: This all came from the user-friendly code? This application called for an accessory dwelling unit that are only resident, not income. Leslie: Accessory dwelling units are only deed restricted to residents. And those are different from when we have deed restricted low income or mod. Low income or mod become units of density and we don't have the ability to approve an accessory dwelling unit____mumble___according to code. Graeme: So they could come in and say "We have got these 9 rights and then they have the 1 that they are doing. 2 PZM1.16.90 Leslie: there. Because they are replacing a building that was already Graeme: And what would they have to supply for affordable housing for that 1 unit? Leslie: Nothing. Sunny Vann: Just as a point of clarification. The application does not request exemption from employee housing requirements. The TDRs that are being used have provided that a housing previously instead of having free market fees revert in this case mumble ---- ---- Leslie: Staff is recommending that we don't take a vote and make a recommendation today that we do it February 6th when we will have the affordable housing issue cleared up. Vann: We really don't have a lot of problems or issues with most of the conditions. But we would like to show you some site plans. (This he did) This will be a condominiumized project. We are going to do 5 units of free market on each side. The corner units on both parcels each contain an accessory dwelling unit. The applicants wanted to include those units as part of those free market units because we believe they are beneficial to the project. We have deed restricted to the resident guidelines. I guess I screwed up when I wrote the application. I just recently did the plat amendments to the 700 E. Main Project in which we agreed to provide multiple accessory dwelling units that were recommended for conditional use approval by the P&Z and subsequently approved by the City council. The conditional use language and the language that refers specifically to accessory dwelling units makes no mention as to their being limited to single family or duplexes. However when you read the growth management exemption provision under GMP it does limit it to single family duplex. Since the applicant is willing to provide them, if we are not allowed to provide them, we have to remove them it would seem to be to everyone's best interest to amend the code to allow them so that the conditional use review would not force us to put them there but you need to review on a case by case basis. We cannot convert them simply to affordable housing units--deed restricted units because they count as a unit density. We would have to then eliminate free market units or to include them as deed restricted employee units. So they would be accessory dwelling units which do not count as density and then the 10 free market units as well. 3 PZM1. 16 . 90 The other issue has to do with encroachment license that City council will approve. It is up by review by the P&Z but we would like some support from you to city Council. The parking for the project is provided sub grade. The parking is only required for the free market portion of the project. We have proposed however to provide parking for the accessory dwelling units as well on site. In order to keep from having multiple ramps we have one access ramp which access the below grade parking garage. It is well back from the west end to eliminate turning movement problems and it reduces vehicle circulation in the alley itself. In order then to connect the 2 we have to encroach underneath the alley. There are some existing utilities in the alley. WE have made arrangements to design this in such a way that they would not be adversely impacted and this allows us to reduce the amount of internal circulation of the garage and to provide additional parking which otherwise would not be required. The Council in the past has expressed both support and reluctance to approve such encroachments. It is not absolutely essential to this project. It can be done with 2 ramps. It does require additional garage space below grade for circulation purposes and it would require us to loose several parking spaces. So we are looking for some measure of support from P&Z that this, in fact, is the best solution to solving the parking problem and circulation for a sub grade garage. The Planning Office is of that opinion as contained in the memo prepared for you. Public improvements: We are in a designated sidewalk curb and gutter district of the City. We agree to put in sidewalk, curb and gutter. This area receives a lot of pedestrian movement because of the parking along Cooper, along Durant access on Little Nell and there are basically no sidewalks in this area. We have agreed to work with Parks to install those sidewalks in such a way that they would not adversely affect the vegetation. We also propose to improve the alley. Since we are going to be using it to access the subgrade garage, we want to pave it. We are going to be landscaping with our own back here because the units of course will face both south and north. And we believe it is a public convenience to have that alley improved. There are presently on the property some large Evergreens right about where our ramp is. They are right at the edge of the property. This application envisions removal of those and transplanting those Evergreens. The Parks Dept however has 4 PZM1.16.90 expressed concern based on past experience when trying to move trees the size of these. What we are prepared to do as part of the subdivision improvements agreement is to seek professional expertise in the relocation of those things--to locate them at a satisfactory location to the satisfaction of the Parks Dept and to bond the cost of those trees as determined by an independent 3rd party so that in the event the trees do not survive that a substantial amount of money representing the current value of those trees would be available for the Parks Dept to use in replacement vegetation at their discretion. So at the moment this does envision the removal of these trees. Graeme: You said that there were 3 lots to the west of these? Vann: There are 3 here. the corner here. Because constitute Parcel A have Parcel B have merged. But thing as a unified parcel. There is a mUlti-family condominium on of the merger provision the 6 lots that merged and the 6 lots which constitute we are proposing to develop the entire The problem is if you are going to put the parking below grade to reduce the impact, you pretty much have to excavate the whole site. So the ability to maintain them in this area where the ramp goes down is precluded under this design scheme. The idea of putting the ramp at this end of the property so that there is some stacking capability in the alley for people coming and going mumble is not that particularly a highly trafficked street but it is a-Iot better than having the ramp for example at this end of the alley. Welton: Wouldn't residents be just as inclined to come in off of Original Street as they would off the West End Street? Vann: It is possible. They can come in from this way as well. This is based almost mid block at this point. Compton: Regarding the trees and the design you have, would it make any difference if the ramp were in to the north parcel rather than the south. Vann: In other words flip flop. The trees ar in a cluster so basically it requires to reduce the size of the subgrade parking garage. Once again it is a trade off. We would lose the parking--since we have a mandatory requirement of 1 per bedroom on the free market, these are 9 threes and 1 two. There is a 2 bedroom over the ramp because of the necessity of going down. We couldn't eliminate--there is not mechanism to eliminate the free market. And there is no mandatory requirement for the accessory as you know people have cars so if we have to give up the parking so what we are doing-- 5 PZM1. 16 . 90 Compton: Assuming you have one ramp, why does it have to come in to the south parcel rather than the north and if that would make any difference in the saving of those trees? Vann: If you came in here in order to save the trees we would have to take this unit off and cut the garage back to here. The ramp actually has to be in that location. Welton: I want to know more about those trees and the ramp and the--there is 3 parking spaces that happen right under where you generally said that those trees would be. And those 2 that are right under the ramp would be the least--they are the most inaccessible of the parking spaces in the whole parking structure way at the end of a long runway. I am wondering if--not knowing exactly where those trees are if that corner right there--if the ramp was moved a little bit to the east and that corner was left as a high island with the excavation happening around it, would it be possible to save those trees. Vann: We would be happy to take a look at it. ?: The two western most units mumble in order to save those trees they need enough breathing room and it is really impacting to those units. They would have to be significantly refigured to give that tree breathing room to preserve those trees. Welton: Which on the Durant street elevation having less mass on that highly pedestrian, highly traveled street, perhaps having a little bit of relief between the Bergdorf and your project might not be a bad idea. Maybe a little vest pocket park or something between the 2 buildings would not be a bad idea. Vann: The alley is an interesting question. The whole business about fixing the alleys hadn't come up when we first did this back in September and instead of having instead of as you walk down the alleys now where there is multifamily or duplex which is basically the same thing, because of the height requirement you have got steep paved ramp that goes down to the ground level parking instead of separate parking garage. There is no ability to landscape so each alley is just a blank wall and a series of parking ramps. So by putting all the parking below grade this was an opportunity to create instead of just a blank canyon, an landscaped space with some grass etc. Then when we were going to do this we decided to just pave it too. ?: I think we all know that there is a significant amount of mature Evergreens that surround this property both on the property and in the City ROW. We have done our best to hold this "",... 6 PZM1.16.90 facia of the building back far enough so that we are not going to be undermining those trees by excavating too close to them during construction. Vann: The open space requirement in must be visible from the public ROW. 10ft, 5ft on the side and 10ft on the the RMF zone is The front yard rear. 35% and it setback is The face of this building is about 22ft set back. In the rear it is about 35ft to the fact of the building, and 5ft at the side. Mari: I think the trees ought to be put in Rubey Park. MOTION Herron: I make a motion that we have the Planning Office just draft a recommendation that we will then approve on February 6th so that we don't have to go through all of this allover again and it will be fresh in our minds what conditions we want to impose and what conditions we want to approve rather than have to make a whole new presentation and have to go through this all over again. Welton: I would feel more comfortable going through the conditions before making the motion. Herron: They said they didn't have a problem with the conditions. Vann: Only the ones we addressed. Welton: The conditions you identified were building under the alley, accessory dwelling units. Leslie: If you are going for the accessory dwelling units, it is a conditional use approval. Bruce: My question is what are you going to recommend to Council next week as relates to the accessory dwelling units? Are we going to recommend a code change to allow accessory dwelling units as a GMQS exemption, single family or what are you doing with City Council next week? Leslie: If we--we would ask Council to direct us. To do a code amendment means a 2 step process. If Council feel comfortable and staff feel comfortable that Council can just direct us mumble I think what we will be looking at is accessory dwelling units in new mUlti-family buildings. What our fear is and what we don't want to get into is Centennial, Hunter Longhouse or any of these existing multi-family buildings ,.,.,.""- 7 PZMl.16.90 becoming condos and things like that and if what I would be looking at would be accessory dwelling units in new buildings where you have the ability to look at the space and build the space into it as the whole thing is being developed. Bruce: So you are asking Council to make a code interpretation, is that it? Leslie: Right. Either to make a code interpretation and direct us to clean it up or to direct us to do a code amendment__mumble. And we are planning to go forward with a package of code amendments either at the end of the month or the beginning of February. Vann: So long as the applicant is concerned it is a one step conditional use review by the P&Z. I don't have a problem with approval of those accessory units. In other words conditional use approval with a condition that the language be cleaned up prior to us pulling a building permit. Then if Council declines to amend the code for multi-family, I can either delete them, convert them to square footage for free market purposes or for whatever. I prefer to keep them. That way you would not have to look at it again conditioned on this review. As far as the accessory dwellings are concerned there is a memo requiring 300sqft. These are 450sqft. So they are generous. They all have outdoor patios. Welton asked for any public comment. There was none and he closed the pUblic hearing. Welton: How do we want to address the 5 issues that you bought up, Sunny? Vann: If we want to talk about the issues tonight then Leslie and I will hammer out the specific language and we will see them again on the 6th. And as far as the ones I brought up I think Leslie touched on accessory dwelling unit and it is in your memo (attached in record) as #1 and I would suggest that the P&Z concur that that be revised to reflect that conditional use approval for accessory dwelling units in this project is approved by the P&Z subject to Council's resolution of the language problem in the current GMP exemption. Herron: By the time we see this again, it is already going to be done by city Council. Vann: The only thing that is going to happen by Council on January 22nd is to review the City Attorney's response on TDRs. ~ 8 PZMl.16.90 .",~~ Welton: Your condition was taking accessory dwelling units and putting them into affordable and you are looking for a reading from City Council as to whether or not the accessory can be incorporated into this as if they were affordable without the deed restriction on them. Leslie: proviso. We are also looking for info from you guys on that How would you like to see this happen? Bruce: I think on existing multi-family kinds of structures, affordable or caretaker units added into that density. I think on new projects where we are addressing affordable housing I think on new projects there ought to be something that we can approve as a conditional use. Mari: I agree with that. Vann: As far as the other 3, I would attache not so much a condition but the P&Z' s position regarding public improvements and the encroachment license. I would put in the WHEREAS on the P&Z resolution for the 6th meeting your support or your lack of support for public improvements and the encroachment. Leslie: #4 we discussed the improvements--ROW improvements-- Vann: All this says though is the City's policy is currently unresolved and we should be required to join an improvements agreement in the event one is ever formed. What I am looking for is something from P&Z that suggests that we handle this with a unified garage and one access point or not do it that way or they would prefer that we install sidewalk and gutter or that we don't. Graeme: The trees, I think are fine. I think there is plenty of new trees and I think that those others could be put somewhere. The encroachment would be fine with me also. It seems to make the thing work and I think there is a lot of at-grade space that is created because of the underground parking solution. I don't some of the problems with those encroachments. There might be some good reasons that I am not aware of. Vann: I will tell you of my experience with trying to process them. The bottom line is a project will be built and if we can make it work better I think it is in the pUblic's best interest. I don't think it is a util i ty issue because we are required pursuant to the conditions to design it to the San Dist and the utility company's specifications. 9 .. PZM1.16.90 -- Graeme: My final thing is on the sidewalks and stuff, I am not in favor of sidewalks in every area of town. I think it would be a benefit to have them here. Leslie: Engineering does not encroachment license application. from the Eng Dept. object to proceeding with an That application has to come Vann: That application is part of this submittal. Mari: I agree with all the points that Graeme made. Compton: I agree with what Graeme said. I am glad to see that there are plans to put some sidewalk over on Cooper street. I think that is badly needed. I would be in favor of paving the alley and that single access providing it satisfies whatever Engineering forms there are. Herron: I would like to recommend that we use the trees on the golf course. Welton: I don't have a problem with the parking underneath the alley. I think it is why encroachments were invented. You could actually get a lot more cars in the area under the alley than what you have shown. Whether it ends up being just tunnel or actually just parking it doesn't--I think it helps in a very congested parking part of town. I think the accessory dwelling units need to be--the oversight needs to be corrected. There is so much pedestrian traffic in that area that any beginning of sidewalks in that area is a help. I am not in favor of moving the large Evergreen trees and would like to see the ramp moved to jog slightly one way or the other or however it can be done and that unit to be re-worked or eliminated to provide a little bit of green space, a little bit of relief along what is going to tend to be a very built up whole solid block between the Bergdorf and the old Hundred. A little relieve aside from streets and alleys would, to my mind, be a worthwhile tradeoff. I think more alleys we can pave, the better to get down dust and dirt and all the mess of winter. One of your conditions, #5, Ample clearance into the underground garage for proper trash collection. I don't think that a BFI truck is going to be able to ever get down that ramp or will they ever go down that ramp if they ever try it once. Vann: That is one that I am going to verify with Engineering. Basically the way we have it set at the moment, we have a central '"'''''' 10 PZM1. 16 . 90 deposi tory in the tunnel. And then we would have management responsibility to bring that up to a central collection point. Welton: I know we don't get a change to look at it after we look at it on the 6th of February. I would like to have a better indication of what the buildings look like. There is lots of nice little curves that remind me of another subdivision with a lot of nice little curves. Mari: That one that won an award? Welton: I would like to get an indication of what the architecture looks like. And in particular something that is one of my pet peeves and would like to see change being made to and that is walls along property lines. Is this going to be a walled enclosure. If not what is it going to be? Is it going to have gates? Is it going to be a fortressed west end street? What kind of atmosphere is it going to have for the pedestrians using Durant. Is it going to be them on one side of the wall and this on the other? So I would like to feel comfortable with that when we look at it again. ~"".,".' Vann: So far as the walls are concerned I believe the application talks about a low brick wall. The reason being is the open space regulations have been amended such that the open space has to be visible from the street. We will be happy to comment on that when we come back on the 6th. We will be happy to show you the architecture which is not germane to subdivision review. This is not a PUD. But we would be happy to bring work in progress and try to show you some perspectives or where we are heading with respect to design of the project. Welton: It is just to make the commission more familiar and more comfortable with something that is going to be a very dominant element on Durant Street for a lot of years to come. Vann: There seemed to be a consensus on all of the issues with the exception of Welton's comments regarding the relocation of the trees. Is that shared? Herron: I would like to see the Planning Office bring back this resolution with the conditions just as we have talked about tonight. I don't have any problem with the trees. I don I t believe anybody else did other than Welton. ,.,<'''. MOTION My motion is that we go along with the conditions. We are in favor of the conditional use. We are in favor of the conditional - 11 PZMl.16.90 use. We are in favor of paving the alley and the other sidewalk and curbs and gutters. We are in favor of the encroachment. I personally think the encroachment can be as wide as the alley is. And I have no problem with the removal of the trees as long as they are done on the basis that they are going to be put to some good use. And I think the golf course is a good use for big trees. Vann: granted that is Unlike previous situations where the Parks Dept simply a permit, we are willing to bond those at a fair price established by an independent party. Herron: That is my motion. Mari seconded the motion with all in favor. Welton closed the public hearing. Meeting was adjourned. Time was 5:45pm. . Janice M.I Carney, ci -- .-' 12