Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19900417 ,.----.,,-.. u ~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 17. 1990 Chairman Welton Anderson called meeting to order at 4:30pm. Answering roll call were Richard Compton, Bruce Kerr, Herron, Mari Peyton, Roger Hunt, Jasmine Tygre and Anderson. Michael Welton COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Michael announced that as of June 1st, 1990 he would no longer be a member of this Board as he is moving into the County. Roger: Regarding project management committee for the down valley rails. Tomorrow we are having another meeting at 1: 30. Anyone would be invited and welcome at the conference room at RFTA. At the last meeting we ranked all the different options including Main street. The Rio Grande ROW came on top. Some thought the Midland was better. So that is where we are at this point. Jasmine: Last week Michael brought up the problem that we are having with the Truscott Place because there is no safe break for the residents to cross the highway to take the bus and they will wind up taking their cars because they don't want to get killed getting across Hwy 82 to get the bus. There isn't anything officially that P&Z can do because a lot of it has to do with either getting RFTA to pull the buses in both ways or getting the Highway Dept to put up a light. Neither of which we have any control over but I would really like to see this thing pursued before somebody gets killed out there. Michael: I think we could at least adopt a resolution recommending City Council get the Highway Dept to put a light there which was the original discussion we were all in favor of at the time but the applicant said that they thought they would have to pay for it and they didn't have the money for it. Welton asked for a motion. There was none. STAFF COMMENT Leslie: It was decided to meet at 3:30pm on April 24, 1990 for the joint work session with County P&Z on transportation. PUBLIC COMMENT There was none. PZM4.17.90 MINUTES APRIL 3. 1990 Mari made a motion to approve these minutes. Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor. VOLK STREAM MARGIN AND VESTED RIGHTS RESOLUTION PUBLIC HEARING Welton opened the public hearing. Kim Johnson, Planning Dept. made presentation. record) (attached in Welton asked for public comments. There were none and he closed the public hearing. MOTION Welton: I would entertain a motion concerning the Volk Stream Margin Development Rights. to adopt Resolution Review and Vesting #5 of Roger: I so move. Mari seconded the motion with all in favor. FRYWALD CONDITIONAL USE FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT PUBLIC HEARING Welton opened the public hearing. Michael excused himself from this hearing because of possible conflict of interest. Kim Johnson made presentation as attached in record. Welton asked for public comment. the public hearing. There was none and he closed MOTION Roger: I move to recommend approval of the conditional use of an affordable housing unit on the Frywald property with the modification of condition #1 to indicate that prior to issuance of CO the accessory dwelling unit must be deed restricted with the Housing Authority as a resident occupied unit with a 6 month minimum lease. Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor. 2 PZM4.17.90 AMBRIDGE STUDIO PUD AMENDMENT PUBLIC HEARING Welton opened the public hearing. Kim Johnson made presentation as attached in record and recommended tabling of the application. Welton asked the applicant for comments. Shirley Ambridge: I own the house. I live on the 2nd floor which is built on a hill. It is even with the road. Downstairs is an employee unit. So I do not want to take out the employee unit to put in an office. The reason I wanted to have an office at my house is that my rent got raised and I cannot afford that. If I don't have an office--what I use an office for--I am a designer and a sales rep. So most of my work is done either on the road or on the telephone. I need the space to hang samples. I need the space to occasionally show people. Maybe I have 10 sales meetings a year in my office. '. If I don't have it there, I can't afford to have it downtown. That would put me on the highway going to Basalt or someplace else. It is not at all in any way, shape or form a retail and/or even a hotel operation. I have clothes in there for me to look at, for me to take on the road when I go selling and also for me to do the design work on them. Welton: The major concerns that the Planning Office seemed to have were that it comply with the code requirement that the square footage not exceed a certain percentage of main floor living area. Can you comply with that? Bill Campbell, architect: The calculations that staff came up with are not quite correct. The main floor area of the upper level is 1, 022sqft half of which would be the office and the other half for home occupation of 511sqft. What we are proposing is a structure of 504sqft which includes both. So I feel we are in compliance with the regulations. Welton: What was the other main problem you had. fact that it was detached. It was the Kim: Right. It is visible in such a prominent fashion. The fact that it is constructed entirely as a commercial use. We talked at length in the department about this and the intent of the home occupation definition. The one that stuck out in our minds the most is the 50% clause. We feel that the intent of the code is not only keep people from fixing other people's cars in 3 PZM4.17.90 driveways but also just to present to the neighbors that which is considered residential uses and residential character and to build a separate structure simply to provide office space on its own without any other accessory uses typically found in residential area such as a garage or a storage shed for their lawn mower is out of the character of the home occupation's definition. We propose that the applicant--one thing Planning suggested that the applicant consider adding onto the main structure itself in harmony with the structure so as to not--the same square footage could serve the same purpose without appearing as to be a separate building just for that one use. Shirley: If I need to put a garage up, I will put a garage up. Welton: That is not what she said. Shirley: But I mean there is nothing--I do not repair cars. If I build down below and add it onto where my other unit is it would take my yard out and leave a parking lot in. I can't imagine taking a yard out and leaving a parking lot in. '" Bill: In regard to the code I can't agree that the intent of the specific item was to do anything else than prevent occupations in the yard. The home occupation is going to be visible whether it is a detached building or part of the main structure. You are still going to see it. If you look in the code it specifically says it may be located in an accessory building. Kim: Again we felt the intent was to allow some money making activities to be generated from a structure that may already be on the lot such as an existing garage or carriage house type of situation. But going back to the expectation of a residential neighborhood that being you see garages or you see a storage shed or carriage house to change the use is a whole lot different than actually constructing a building just for the use. - Michael: I guess I understand your point. But in reading the regulation it does say accessory dwelling unit. If they built a garage and came in to apply to put it in the garage, would the Planning Office have problem with it? And then if they came back in later and said they wanted to change the garage to accessory use, would that be a problem. Would it be objectional if they wanted to put in a garage on the same site? Kim: No. It would also come before PUD review and we would make proposals as to the location. Changing the use I don't know if that would be a separate third process or not. 4 PZM4.17.90 Leslie: If you had a garage and wanted to change the whole garage into a home occupation I think that we would have a problem that that building was not serving as a __mumble__ secondary to the resident use. If you add a 2-car garage and you wanted to turn a portion of that garage into a studio that would be a different story. But to build a garage and turn the whole entire garage into home occupation--that is a problem with the code. The code lays out all of these criteria and some are pretty clear cut. Some are not. Bill: Now I think you are confusing the permitted use for home occupation with the incidental nature of the accessory building. To my way of thinking this building is truly an accessory building. The use or home occupation is clearly permitted by the code. Roger: If you converted the existing dwelling unit on the lower floor to your home occupancy and then built this as a residential unit I can see where there would be no problem. Roger: with the addition of the kitchen and bathroom facilities in this unit it could be the accessory dwelling unit and they could convert what is now the accessory dwelling unit to their home occupancy office area. " Shirley: dwelling detached. Currently that couldn't be done because our accessory unit definition specifically references attached or There is a proposal to allow detached accessory units. Richard: My concerns were with the apparent prominence of this new structure. It is 20 plus feet above the lower level of the existing building and up closer to the street. And for an accessory use that seems to me to be giving a lot more prominence than necessary. If it could be brought down and built into the hillside more or attached to the existing building seems to me would be much less obtrusive and more fitting with the intention of the code. Welton: What is the between the main floor level floor? relative difference in floor elevation of this accessory building and the upper Bill: 6 feet. Welton: And the roof ridge? Bill: About 5 to 6 feet. Welton: This is an unusual application in that all of the graphic presentations in it I have no idea where this house was 5 PZM4.17.90 because there is no street name or identification on any of the maps. I am familiar with this house and given the topography of the property, I think it is probably a pretty good solution. It is a steep bank up from the road and it would present itself as a very small scale elevation on that street. Kim: It is 17 feet above the elevation of the street to the top of the roof. Welton: itself as structure. That is about a story and a half. It would present a rather small scale domestic type of cottage-looking I don't share the concerns of the Planning Office with the detached character of this nor with the square footage as long as that complies. That is a code situation as opposed to something that normally we would have a lot of concern with. Mari: If you do have a deed restricted unit is it possible to convert it to home occupation? I didn't think you could do that. Kim: I would have to look to the Housing Authority on the conditions of that deed restriction. Leslie: I think it would depend upon why the deed restriction was there. Were they scored based upon that. Welton: My feeling knowing which house this is is that the separate structure that is sort of artificially tied to the existing structure is probably a pretty good solution to keep the structures on the property from getting to be too huge. Roger: My only comment is that had you looked at dropping that house down a partial level? Bill: We looked at that. floor close to grade. The best solution is to keep that Welton asked the applicant if they had any problems with the conditions if we deleted condition #2. Bruce: Did the applicant say there would be sales meetings? Shirley: About 10 a year. Bruce: How many people would it involve? Shirley: 4. Welton asked for public comment. There was none. Kim: The height of the structure perhaps could be amended and have it be more square footage on the ground. 6 PZM4.17.90 Welton: They are well within and considerably lower than the allowable height limits for this zone district. And I don't think in this kind of situation that we need to be arbitrary in designing their structure for them if they comply with the underlying zone district requirements. Michael: I am not quite sure I understand the Planning Office's concerns. I think this is an appropriate use of this site. I think it is a way to keep somebody who is local staying here. MOTION Michael: I make a motion to recommend approval making condition #5 to be #1. #6 to be #2. #7 to be #3 and #8 to be #4. Welton: I am still in favor of keeping #1, #3 and #4. Do you have any problems with #1, #3 and #4? Bill: No. Only as long as they are talking about the code and not the-- Michael: #3--If you take a look at what they are talking about. Sub section H say "not visible from any other structure". If they are going to get a permit and go ahead and build it I don't want somebody to come along and say tear it down because somebody else can see it. That is what concerns me about that one. Welton: How about amend #3 that adheres to Item H the home occupation--that the activity not take place outdoors in yards where it is visible to neighbors. Michael: Jasmine: Yes. I amend my motion. I am not sure what the motion is. Welton: The motion is to approve condition #2 is out. #3 is amended to clarify that it means no outdoor retail activity. And the rest of the conditions as---- Michael: Kim: #4 Michael: Why all of a sudden are we keeping #4? is more of a building permit issue where-- Let the Building Dept worry about it. Welton: That is just protection that is redundancy from the Department of Redundancy. Michael: OK. I will leave it in. Mari seconded the motion. 7 PZM4.17.90 Bruce: I am going to vote no. I agree that we ought to keep cars off the Hwy 82 and we ought to keep our local businesses here in town. But I must agree somewhat with the Planning Dept. I think my understanding of the home occupation seems to say to me that if somebody who has a home and they are going to do their business out of their home and I know we have talked about yes you can flipflop things around build the space somewhere else and all of that. But that is my understanding of what the home occupation is. If I have my home or am renting a home and I am going to do my business out of that existing home that is what the home occupation definition I think implies to me and I really have problem with building a whole new structure to accommodate a business. In effect we are saying that this is no longer a residential zone, it is a business zone. If that is the way we are going to do it to me it is sort of like the accessory dwelling unit. If we have decided that there is an overriding need in Aspen to build accessory dwelling units whether they be attached or detached then we have taken into consideration all of the neighborhood concerns and make that decision, that is fine. But I see us heading in a direction here with the creation of business uses in a residential zone that I am not ready to buy into. And for those reasons I am going to vote against this application. Jasmine: I share some of Bruce's concerns. I would like to see us keep this as a discussion item. However in addition to the fact that this business is not going to be obnoxious, it does actually fulfill the requirements of the code as the code is written now. And therefore I have to vote in favor of the application. We do have to be concerned because in addition to the points that Bruce made, gradually you start seeing an erosion of what is really a home occupation just as we have the locally oriented businesses. And then trying to define what those are. I feel comfortable about this particular application. But I really think that we have to start worrying about this as the pressure increases which I am sure Bruce is right about. Everyone voted in favor of the application except Bruce Kerr. Welton closed the public hearing. CLARENDON SUBDIVISION PUD AMENDMENT PUBLIC HEARING Welton opened the public hearing. Leslie made presentation as attached in record. Michael had to excuse himself from this hearing. 8 PZM4.17.90 Roger: I recall a previous approval that the parking was not expanded on. And part of our discussion is how many piecemeal addi tions do we add to this thing over and above the original approval. And here we go again. It is something I am very concerned about. The size of this whole development was once originally negotiated. And that was with fur and feathers flying at the time. And now here we go by onezees and twozees and the intent of that negotiation is being thrown out. Where are we on that? What is this in relationship to the total? Leslie: I did do a memo to you on that. Bill Drueding and I looked at what lot area was allowed for a duplex. On this parcel it was approximately 17,000sqft and so 7 and 1/2 duplexes or 15 units would be allowed on the site if you go with duplexes. If every single one of the units in Clarendon now go up to 3 bedrooms approximately 245sqft each, they are looking at 99% of what is allowed in the R-6 Zone given they were approved in 1975. Jasmine: Was this a GMP project initially? Welton: It was before GMP. Jody Edwards, representative for applicant: The neighborhood has changed a whole lot since 1975. Across the street you have Black Swan Hall which is .44 to 1 in FAR. The Clarendon is .32 and if you expand all of them to 3 bedrooms it goes up to .34 to 1. The proposed Billings project which is now up for 2nd hearings for vested rights to City Council is .97 to 1. The 777 ute also across the street is .93 to 1. To the north and west is all RMF which is 1 to 1. So this as far as floor area to land mass is really the least dense project in the area. We have got 53% open space. We are not going to increase the footprint. We are not going to increase the number of units. We are not going to increase the height. What you have got here is a couple of families whose families have gotten a little bigger. What they would like to do is kick in an extra bedroom so it is a little more comfortable. Larry Yaw, architect for applicant: We would add a bedroom on the 2nd level directly above the existing bedroom there with no change in the lower level or increase to the footprint. As to the request by the Condominium Assoc. to put a false front between the--which really puts the roof of the proposed addition together with 2 other false roofs and a false front. It is a bit of a difficult situation. I do not agree with it. I don't think it makes sense but it did come from the Condominium Assoc. 9 PZM4.17.90 I would like to ask P&Z to put a strong recommendation that it not expand the false fronts but leave the area open to the condominium Association. I would go back and talk to them because I don't agree with it. Jody: This is a copy of the second amended condominium map. Along with the east side it has got marked 11 spaces. Leslie and I both counted them and they have painted 10. So we can increase that by simply going in and re-painting it. There is enough room for 11 spaces. There is also across the top there are 7 spaces over there. That was done in response to a prior request. So if you re-paint and you count that extra space up there we are up to 28 not 29 which is what it is supposed to be based on the prior approvals. There are some large pine trees right there by the entrance so it really wouldn't make any sense to use that entrance-way for the additional parking spaces and I can't find anywhere to add parking without adding asphalt unless you stack them at the end. If you look at Chuck's letter who has been managing the project for 12 years they tell me that rarely are more than 10 to 12 parking spaces ever used. Jasmine: We have an applicant who has not been in compliance with the previous set of conditions. Why are they allowed to come forward with new applications when they haven't even complied with the conditions of the prior application? Leslie: I do very little leg work before I do an application. Jasmine: What I am saying is that we have situations where we spend a lot of time and effort. We have a PUD. We have a PUD approval. We have parking spaces based on number of bedrooms, based on a certain density, based on a certain footprint. Then things do change. People come in to request a PUD amendment. This is a very long involved negotiated thing in which members of the commission and members of the Planning Office go in and do all of this work to come up with an amended PUD. Then it is approved with conditions that everybody has agreed are reasonable conditions. Those conditions are not met and then the applicant comes in again. To me this is really outrageous. I can't tell you how perturbed I am about this. Jody: 1 and before Frankly I agree with 11 who agreed to do you right now. you. It was not the owners of units that and they are the ones who are Jasmine: But you see we have a PUD amendment. It is supposed to 10 PZM4.17.90 be for the project as a whole and here we have all these people coming in separately and independently and trying to change the entity. And then with something that is not quite right as in this situation where conditions were not met. I don't like this kind of approach and I don't think that we should ignore it. Larry: It really wasn't met. I don't know how strong you can make a condition but I certainly would encourage such conditions be very strong terms and enforcible terms with this because it needs to be done. Leslie: This is a 2 step process. Before an application goes forward to Council the current conditions should be met. Larry: Could you request that the Building Dept withhold CO or withhold a building permit until compliance with that specific request has been accomplished? Welton asked for public comments. There was none and he closed the public hearing. I would entertain a motion to approve the PUD amendment to the Clarendon Condominiums with condition #1 being the same as in the Planning Office memo of April 17, 1990. Condition #2 being that the parking spaces be increased to meet prior and current commitments for parking requirements, agreements and parking spaces for the additional bedrooms that are being applied for and approved. Condition #3 be re-worded to read that the false fronts and false roofs on units 2 and 3 are an unnecessary addition to the bulk without any meaning or purpose and they are not approved and not to be a part of this application. Mari: My understanding was that they could only come up with a total of 29 parking spaces. Welton: They had 51% open space. And they are saying they could only come up with 29 parking spaces by not increasing any paved area. They can redesign, reconfigure-- Mari: But what you are saying is there should be 31. Welton: I am saying that whatever they previously agreed to plus the 2 spaces that are required by the additional bedrooms. Whatever that number is is what will eventually be the condition of this approval. 11 PZM4.17.90 Jody: I suspect that is going to require new pavement. Welton: Well, that is fine. Richard: I so move. Motion died for a lack of a second. MOTION Mari: I move to just change the number from 31 to 29 for parking spaces that have to be in place before a building permit is issued. And everything else the same as in Planning Office memo of April 17, 1990. This motion also died for lack of a second. MOTION Mari: OK. Let's try the first motion again. I will second it. Welton: The first motion was for 31 parking spaces. Mari: I second that. Jody: Would you entertain stacked parking as I drew on-- Mari: I don't think the code allows that. Welton: The code doesn't allow that for mUlti-family and we cannot make that judgement. I think that with the minimal amount of additional paving I think they can probably accommodate on site what they have promised in previous approvals and committed to tonight. Roll call vote: Richard, yes, Bruce, no, Mari, yes, Roger, no, Jasmine, no, Welton, yes. Motion failed because of tie vote. Bruce: Whereas I am sympathetic with these families who need more room at Christmas time or whenever this project was approved as a certain kind of project--certain size units. And it seems to me that the way for that person to deal with their problem is to sell or rent or whatever their 2 bedroom units and buy or rent a 3 or 4 or 5 bedroom unit if they need that. The answer is not necessarily to add on. So that is where I am coming from. Roger: I am basically in concurrence with Bruce along that line. And I am being consistent with my previous vote on the 2 units that have been expanded so far. I felt that this one particularly was negotiated development with it's fur and feathers flying. I can remember it. And I have real problems with this piecemeal approach to filling in a project. So that is where I am coming from as well as being a little irked about not having these parking spaces that were supposed to be there on the previous approval of the expansion of the 2 units. 12 PZM4.17.90 Jasmine: I agree. And in addition to my irritation about the lack of previous approval I think that increasing the density which is in fact happening because these units-half of them are short termed. And so regardless of whether it is Joe's unit or Johnnie's unit that is being added onto you have the possibility for increased density in this particular proj ect and I don't think it is in conformance of the original approval. Larry: So because of the building having been built when it was, it now must suffer the consequences of a low density privilege continually afforded other buildings. So in our catching up with these needs we are hammered. Am I seeing it right? Jasmine: I don't understand what you are saying. Larry: If we build out everyone of the remaining 3 bedroom units, we would only be--we would be under the density currently allowed everywhere else around us. Jasmine: But this is what was agreed to in the PUD. Larry: I understand that clearly. And that was the hat that was on at that time. Obviously that has changed because other prerogatives are readily granted to other buildings around it. So we--the ownership of this building--has been positioned with less than they have the right to have. Jasmine: This is what they bought. This is what they have. Nobody is taking away anything from that. And I really object to the kind of planning that says "Somebody else got this density and so therefore everybody else in the neighborhood also has to go to maximum density or they are being unfairly treated". That is part of the reason I am really opposed to this kind of stuff. Roger: And in this case the piecemeal approach to the ultimate expansion of this property. I would suggest if it is going to be done that you come with a proposal. I want to know the ultimate build-out of that building before I start approving more. Larry: That is a good request. Welton: This issue has come up with--piece by piece--to the Aspen Club Condominiums. When I was involved as representative for the Villa of Aspen townhouses we came in with the ultimate build-out, the final, this is it, it can never be any more than this. So all the impacts, all the parking, all the open space questions, all the height, bulk, massing decks and everything was looked at and addressed on an ultimate basis even though that would be a few years down the road before that ever happened. 13 PZM4.17.90 I am sensing from the Planning Office and from the Commissioners they would rather look at it based on that. Larry: I think that is a reasonable request. We will try to get the ownership to make that decision and bring it back. MOTION Roger: I move for the Planning Office to draft resolution recommending denial of this application and basically for the reason that this piecemeal approach shall not be continued because we don't know what is ultimately going to happen on this piece of property on this basis. And we cannot address the problems on a piecemeal basis. Leslie: When your motions go to council now it is in the form of an ordinance. And it is within the body of the ordinance that I layout what happened at the P&Z meeting and what the P&Z ultimately recommended. Welton: We do not send an ordinance to Council. It turns into an ordinance when Council enacts it as law. Leslie: No. Roger: I want a resolution to city Council because that is the only way it is going to adequately present the P&Z's position in this case. Jasmine: I will second the motion if you will add as part of the motion that the applicant has requested denial so that they could talk to Council because the applicant has specifically requested denial. Roger: I add that to the motion. And I think also that it should be added to the motion that the previous approval has not been complied with as far as the parking is concerned. Everyone voted in favor of this motion. Motion to deny carried unanimously. PARKS/GOLF COURSE MAINTENANCE FACILITY PUD AMENDMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE Welton opened the public hearing. Leslie made presentation as attached in record. 14 PZM4.17.90 I really don't have any changes to the memo. However I would like to point out 5 issues that revolve around neighborhood concerns that I have heard. There has been a complaint that this maintenance facility is serving as the focus point for too many other activities. There is scattered golf course equipment all over the site and not contained in the maintenance yard which they intend to expand. There are private vehicles parked where City vehicles could be parked. And there is not really a strong programmatic element with this application to physically identify what will be removed from the yard and be stored in the garage itself. Glenn Horn: In 1986 the City proposed a much larger facility on this site. That facility was approximately 9, OOOsqft in size. There was a lot of objection to that. A lot of concerns raised as to what should take place on the site and how the City should maintain their equipment and where that maintenance should occur. The 1986 application was ultimately withdrawn without any action on the part of the Planning commission or the City Council. A study was initiated by the Planning Office in order to figure out just how Parks and Golf Department equipment should be maintained. The recommendation was that there should be a limited facility located at the current site. The proposed expansion will be 12ft high. It will be a very simple building. It is the most minimal improvement that can take place there and still take care of the various functions that operate out of there. One problem that we are running into is the storage of equipment outside and the deterioration of the equipment. with this new building that problem would be resolved. Another problem is the storage of dangerous chemicals and fertilizers that are getting damp because they are not properly stored. with this new facility those substances would be secured in a safe manner. This building will take care of the functions of the golf course primarily. There will be functions of the Parks Dept that aren't met by this building. This isn't the ultimate solution but it will take care of the major needs of the golf course. We are concerned about the material that is stored outside this area that is isolated that is screened by the land form and for people who live on the golf course-particularly Bill and Pat Sharp who live next door who are concerned about what they see from their house when they are looking out towards the Golf Course. 15 PZM4.17.90 The Parks Dept has committed that there will be nothing stored here that is not essential to the operation. They are willing to commit in conditions of approval that those sorts of things will not be stored on the site. Everything is going to be contained within the height of this landform. The visibility from Cemetery Lane will be not greater than it is right now. The only disturbance from Cemetery Lane will be this new gas line which has to be put in which will be re-vegetated. Existing trees from here will be replanted and new trees will be added on the landform to further reduce visibility. Roger: Are you going to internalize all of the parking? Rich: There is existing parking to service the office building for business. Basically we tried to stay within the confines of existing ____. The only change will be this wall being moved out to give us the room we are going to lose for the yard storage with the building being in place. Roger: Assuming the highway coming in on the Main street alignment will change the alignment of Cemetery Lane to its original alignment--what does that do to your site plan? Glenn: It shouldn't affect the site plan. The existing Cemetery Lane will be vacated and will become a park. The existing highway 82 will be vacated and become park. And there will simply be an access road from the old/new Cemetery Lane alignment that will go into the-- Roger: What is now sort of a trail turns into Cemetery Lane. Glenn: Right. It will go into the Parks facility. Welton opened the public portion of the hearing for comment. Bill Sharp: I went through this 4 years ago. A lot has changed. Although this afternoon I have to admit this dilapidated trailer was moved and what an improvement it makes. The amount of junk and amount of equipment is not appropriate for golf maintenance. And the point that I have is it is pretty much the same as your P&Z Dept brought is the fact that it is not just golf maintenance but becoming more and more things all the time. What I am talking about now is the Parks Dept. It certainly is obvious that the Parks Dept belongs down here where the parks are and the malls are that have to be maintained. It just so happened when I went home this afternoon there was 2 of those power brushes going across the entrance to Aspen across the Castle Creek Bridge which creates a bottleneck of traffic. It 16 PZM4.17.90 was pointed out to me by the Engineering Dept that there--in this new garage there is a very large storage area in the lower level which will be ideal for Parks equipment and they wouldn't have to make this trip. They point out to me that the maintenance for this building here the wood working shop is necessary out there for that. Well I don't know what good it is doing. If you just take a look at the ceiling it certainly could use some maintenance. Another example of things that are happening there is from 1986. In 1986 we had one dump truck. That year we bought another one which was to replace the old one which we still have. And here within the last few weeks we have a 3rd dump truck. Now to me they are not used that much and it is not appropriate just for golf maintenance. The other thing that happens with those vehicles, there is no designated place for that to be parked. So consequently the most convenient place is by the 15th tee box which is where everything is just dropped. You have a parking area in this area along the right hand side which would be out of my view and the golfers view. That would be a definite place to have that large equipment which is not meant to be put into this new facility. There are at least 6 pickup trucks that I know of and I question the number of those. This is a much more appropriate area and out of the view of the golfers. It is a matter of organization. I have asked for more detail about how this is going to be used and why and what is going on and the method of how this is supposed to operate once you get it but to no avail. One other thing that has just been adopted by this area is a nordic track setter. My discussion with the nordic people that it would be better located in the high school area because the high school gets its snow first and keeps it longer and they wouldn't have to cross 82 and go through the mud to get to the high school track to set those. And they have an area there where the buses are kept. Don Kopf, representing the Castle Creek Homeowner's Association: I am the President. I am passing out a format so everyone knows what I am talking about. In 1976 the city granted themselves a variance for a temporary maintenance structure on the present location. At that point the residents were asked what they thought about it. They said "Well, let's look at it". So the plans were submitted. It was bermed. It was a very low facility. Everybody said "Fine, stick it in there. You have got 17 PZM4.17.90 to have some place to take care of the golf course maintenance equipment". That was in 1976. The City gave themselves a variance for one building. There are approximately 5 buildings there now. Those buildings have been moved in without permits or anything else. Everyone recognizes the need for adequate and secure facilities for the golf and parks maintenance. The residents of the surrounding area object strongly to the continual overloading of what was considered a temporary facility in 1976. And the fact that the powers that be go forward, spend money, time and effort without any consideration for the people in that area. The first thing of importance in the area is to have the Parks and Golf Dept clean up their act. We realize that they have no place to put their equipment at the present. But it doesn't excuse the fact that there are vehicles and debris occupying space without necessity. He then passed pictures around. There are a number of cars parked in the parking facility that are accorded for the Golf Course maintenance. One vehicle has a 1988 license plate on it. The applicant is asking for an addition of 2,100sqft. That won't contain the amount of material that is scattered around in its present form. You couldn't even get it in there and service it. In 1986 there was an attempt to add 9,000sqft. It was turned down. Help and assistance was offered by the residents free to work out a solution. No one was contacted. The current application for another addition will not solve the problem. The residents in the area are not against a maintenance facility for Golf and Parks. They are against a maintenance facility in that location. There is an existing shed adjacent to the city shop. It is an open shed. It is steel and corrugated iron. That could be replaced in this configuration. That could be replaced with a 40X140 maintenance building which would grant them 5,600sqft. It would certainly eliminate the need for an existing eyesore. It would not affect the turn-around area in the yard and would be within the existing fence which would secure space. The difference between this location and the golf maintenance area is 3/10s of a mile. (Showing pictures of the current County facility out by the bus barn) You will see one structure that is quite low with nothing 18 PZM4.17.90 but garage doors. The facility is 40X140 with nothing but nice clean garage doors in front of it. It certainly wouldn't be objectionable to the people who live down there. It would be an improvement over what they have now. Then there is an area to the east of the current affordable housing. There is an area out there on the flat itself a space of 300X180. The maintenance facility could be built on this space accessible by the road through the golf course which is presently what they are using. The golf course maintenance people and the Parks people are currently using this road so they don't have to come back through the housing to get to this area. still allowing adequate space for storage of dirt and not to be visible from the highway. When you are looking back from the highway to that same area you can't even see that open space from the highway and it could easily support 6,900sqft or more of maintenance facility. There are berms all the way around this. Perhaps even a 16ft high building couldn't be seen. Everyone is so outspoken regarding the visual effects on the entrance to Aspen, let's plan a decent size facility, eliminate all the shacks scattered about and do the job right. The 2,100sqft that is proposed isn't going to solve a thing. The 2,100sqft isn't even going to take care of the equipment that you see scattered about now. The contention of the homeowners is stop going out and money trying to jam something down the homeowner's without having any input from the residents. Do planning. pick out a site which was suggested in 1986. At this time it isn't necessary to discuss the Marolt possibility or the land to the north and east of a 7 million dollar vacant garage. If you look at our new garage, look to the north and the east. There is also another area out there that could be utilized for a maintenance facility. spending throats a little The homeowners that I am representing are against a slipshod method. Another 2,100sqft is not going to clean up the area and the area is an eyesore. Pat Sharp: I am the closest neighbor to this operation. I also am a golfer and I think that the golf course should have a very nice maintenance deal but the operation that exists at this particular location is much too large for a residential area. They are stuffing this little project in here that they have no masterplan for a future storage of all of the equipment that lies everywhere. 19 PZM4.17.90 Hal Clark: I am here representing the Parks Association. My observation is that it may be 10 years before you get another parks building built in this community. I think we have a rather strong deficit in service related capabilities in this community and this is a good example why tonight. I think that this is a very small building I think it will improve the situation in the neighborhood by covering most of the stuff that is now stored outside. We have looked at reports on the other site locations. All of them have problems with them. I think a small expansion of the facility at this location is an appropriate thing to do and will help with he maintenance of the golf course. Henry Goldsmith: I am a property owner adjacent to the golf course. Anything that can improve the maintenance and appearance of the golf course I am in favor of. Dick Meeker: I am President of the Aspen Golf Association which represents about 170 members. In 1986 we entered into an agreement with the city of Aspen to bring the USGA which is really recognized as the governing body and part of their expertise is in course management and maintenance. The comment that was made on the visit this year by the __?__ that he had never seen a facility as dilapidated and as deplorable and as embarrassing as the facility that we have out there now as well as the way things are as far as equipment. So I am in support of anything that can be done and this is being done by the golfers by the way. You who play golf are paying for this facility. $50, $60 or $70 thousand dollars is coming out of the golf fund. It is not coming out of the general fund. It is not the ultimate solution. But I think it is needed and the golfers would appreciate your support of it. Nelson Little: I want to support everything that Dick said. I think it would help to clean it all up. Ellen Goldsmith: I agree with the last gentleman here. Welton then read into the record letters from Spencer Schiffer in support of this project, Hal Clark of the Parks Association in support, Ruth Don Horton in support, Pat Sharp against, Mr. and Mrs. Houghton Trott, objecting, Leslie and Carl Schiller, objecting, John Keleher in support, Frank J. Woods, III 1n support, Mary Jo Fenton in favor, Boyd L. Jefferies, in support, Rich Walbert in support, Barbara & Kevin Owen in support and a petition from the neighbors of the golf course objecting to the expansion. (All attached in record) 20 PZM4.17.90 Glenn: This facility admittedly is not going to solve all of the problems of the Parks, Golf, Nordic council, Mall maintenance. It is intended primarily to take care of golf functions. It will also assist in taking care of some of the Parks equipment that is needed to maintain other parks in the community. It has been designed in response to the study that was done in 1986 after the last application was withdrawn. As far as the equipment that is stored out on the site the applicant will be glad to inventory every piece of equipment that is out there and discuss what can be relocated and we can do that before this application goes on to City Council. There was no further public comment and Welton closed the public portion of the meeting. Michael: When you take a look at the pictures of the site, and I play golf and cross country ski over there, this is a site that has been abused by the City insofar as a lot of the equipment that is sitting there. I am sympathetic to the needs of the golf course and I guess I can be somewhat sympathetic to the Nordic Council insofar as having equipment that sets the track on the golf course. But it looks to me from looking at these pictures that what we are being asked to do is to correct the situation that whoever the powers that be are insofar as maintaining this facility whether it is the city or the golf course or whatever have really abused by virtue of their prior approval. This is really a junk yard and it is offensive to a neighborhood. I am inclined to support the application tonight because I think that allowing them to build some kind of a building is probably going to correct the situation insofar as the Sharps and many other people are concerned. But I find it offensive that we are being asked to approve something that is basically a remedial process to a previous abuse by the Parks Association. That is boats being parked there, cars, bleachers and things like that clearly don't belong there. One question I have is how much of this total 4,100sqft facility is used for the golf course and how much of it includes other City equipment? I think Bill Sharp's suggestion that the brushes that clean off the Mall would probably be much better and the City would be much better served with them being in the parking garage or in the basement of the parking garage. Coulombe: The intended square footage will be used by the golf course and the other departments. We would use 100% of the area for different functions of the golf course if it is constructed. We currently use 100% of what is there. 21 ,^~-~---., PZM4.17.90 Michael: The brushes aren't used on the golf course. Coulombe: No but the site is used 100%. Michael: If we approve a 4,100sqft facility and you clean up all the equipment that is on the site, how much of that 4,100sqft is going to be used for golf course maintenance, storage, fertilizers and whatever and how much of it is going to be used by the Parks Association for Mall brushes and things like that? Coulombe: I would say it is 50-50. Roger: Of the heavier equipment is that proposed to be housed in this facility as well? Coulombe: No. Currently in fact if you look at the site right now, today we made a large effort on moving anything large size wise over to the ? area that Don Kopf mentioned which would be an alternativelLocation in his mind for this construction. We have moved it all and we are going to continue to keep it over by the Red Roof. It is not going to be in front of the view of 15 tee or the Sharps any more. We will do everything in our efforts to clean the area. This is the one thing that is going to spark a move on our part. Till now we have had no place to put anything and we will try everything in our power to mitigate the mess that is over there. There are 3 pieces of equipment over there. And we are currently auctioning it off. The old green dump truck and 2 graders and everything else we utilize continually. So it is not a junk yard. All of this stuff is being used throughout the year. Welton: Do you have any strong concerns about the conditions for approval that were listed in the memo? Glenn: We have reviewed all the conditions and there is no problem with any conditions with the exception of paving. Rich and the Parks Dept would like to pave the area. But they don't have the budget to do it. They would agree to this condition with some time frame on it when they can get budget to do it. Roger: I think because it is the golf course that is making this application for a golf facility, we are not seeing a solution to the rest of the problem which is not necessarily their problem. Where is the trailer going to be parked? Where is their pickups going to be parked and things like that? I am not seeing it in this proposal. Where are the brushes for the Parks Dept going to be parked? Where is the Nordic Council going to park their snow cats, etc. I am not seeing a whole picture here. Jasmine: I agree with Roger. What you kind of want to see is 22 PZM4.17.90 some kind of management approach to these various things. How do you co-ordinate all of these activities to create minimum fuss and to make sure that somebody is in charge? You need to have some kind of overall entity as regards responsibility for maintaining this whole area. Obviously having additional storage is going to only be an improvement and therefore I think this is the correct way to go. But I would also like to see as part of this application some kind of attempt to co-ordinate efforts to decide what goes where and who is going to take care of it and who is going to be in charge. The public needs to know who is the guy you call when there is garbage allover the place and who is the guy you are going to call when there is a truck left there for 2 weeks. Somebody has got to be in charge. Coulombe: That is currently set up as Leisure Services Dept. The director of Leisure Services is in charge of all of our departments that are on that site. Jasmine: Then maybe we should have some kind of document that says that we need to have some kind of management plan that is approved by the head of Leisure Services and who is going to be the executive of it. Glenn: We will be happy to inventory everything that is on that site and develop a proposal for where it will be and what has to be there and what doesn't have to be there and present that to the Planning Office for their review before it goes to Council. Jasmine: I really would like to see that. I think it would be tremendously helpful. I think it would make your application that much more acceptable. Glenn: We can have the Leisure Services Director review that plan and sign it and say that he will agree to that plan for storing equipment. Roger: Can we get a schematic of the entire area as to the areas we would expect the different types of equipment to be stored. Glenn: We can do a complete site plan for the missing portion of the site. Welton: This is a conditional use hearing which is the one step before P&Z plus is the PUD amendment which goes to City Council. Are you saying that this application should come back to us before it goes to City Council? Roger: I would really like to see it. 23 PZM4.17.90 Michael: I think Roger's idea is a good idea. But I would like to put a condition in here that one year after the building is built, they come back so we can see whether they have complied with the conditions. Welton: I don't feel strongly that this public hearing needs to be continued so that we can look at a masterplan for the whole area and where this truck goes and where that grader goes. MOTION Welton: This would be a conditional use approval with the conditions as listed in the Planning Office memo with #4 being changed to read that the pavement should happen within a specific time--a year or when funding from the city can be approved. And a lOth condition that the approval for the conditional use is dependent on subsequent approval of a more comprehensive review and approval of the SPA PUD amendment that incorporates a more specific plan as to location of equipment on this site and other sites in the golf course and City environment--where this equipment that is currently there gets disbursed to. Roger: I will so move. Welton: Condition #11 would be that after a full year of operation the conditional use will come up for review to see if the conditions for approval have been met, the representations have been lived up to. Roger amended his motion. Michael seconded the motion will all in favor. RESTUDY OF YOUTH CENTER BUILDING EAST FACADE WHEELER SOUARE GMOS EXEMPTION The tape was turned to side #2 here and this whole side of the tape is totally inaudible. Any recollection you have of this and want in the minutes I will be glad for your input. I was not at this particular meeting. Thank you for your support. Meeting was adjourned. Time was 7:15pm. 24