Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19910108 ~u ~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 8. 1991 vice Chairlady Jasmine Tygre called meeting to order at 4:30pm. Answering roll call were Sara Compton, Bruce Kerr, Mari Peyton, Welton Anderson was excused. Garton, Graeme Means, Richard Roger Hunt and Jasmine Tygre. MINUTES NOVEMBER 6. 1990 Graeme made a motion to approve minutes of November 6, 1990. Sara seconded the motion with all in favor. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Roger: This has to do with the recyclable trash pickup in the west end which may be the same in the east end. They are having people take trash out to the front door. This seems to me a bit inefficient and a built in disincentive to recycle. A lot in the east end have alleys and why not keep the trash in the alley? It is an eyesore on Tuesdays in the west end and not only do they have to catch the streets--if it were only the streets they could maybe have some justification. And I mean the east/west street but they also have to catch the north/south street because there are some entrances to houses on the north/south street. The alley is where the trash belongs. It seems to me that they could improve their participation by keeping it close to their trash pickups in that area. Certainly where we have alleys which were designed for the servicing of the residences it seems to be appropriate to put it in the alleys. It would certainly make it more efficient for the guy who picks up the trash. It would reduce by half the number of streets he has to cover. Mark Fuller, County: I see your point and I will make an inquiry into this matter. Graeme: Whatever happened on the community planning process? Kim: I will ask Leslie who is very involved in that to bring you up to date on that. Roger: What is the status on the employee housing on top of the parking structure? Why didn't we see it first? Kim: It is news to me too. I will have to check on that. Roger: That going to them first is sort of strange. PZM1. 8.91 PUBLIC COMMENT There was none. DICKENS CONDITIONAL USE FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT Kim, Planning: Made presentation as attached in record. Richard: (referring period of 50 years) restriction. to condition #2 on deed restriction for a I did not realize there was any time Kim: The Housing referral comments are starting to come back with a time frame so that owners don't 10 or 12 years down the road request to have it removed and then realize it was for such a long period of time. Bruce: I am wondering whether the Housing Authority conditions should be automatically made a part of our conditions or have some of those already been satisfied. They have 4 conditions and we have 2. Kim: I think what happened is they are trying to standardize their language so they pullout their set of conditions and in some cases some of them are already taken care of. So I picked out the ones that needed to be carried forward. Bruce: The #2 where it talks about accessory dwelling unit is-- that is already taken care of? Kim: Right. Bill Drueding checks to make sure that there is appropriate separation walls so that it is not--the users don't walk through the unit that it is actually closed off. Graeme: There was an application for one of these dwelling units some months ago that was tabled about 3 times. I guess it was because of some discussion about whether the applicants wanted to have that to be able to be lifted at his option under certain conditions. And I thought that that was being decided. What has happened to that application and how does it affect-- Kim: The way we decided to try and get it--that the only body that can lift the deed restriction is city Council. When Mr. Allan found out that it was a 50 year deed restriction he balked and said the only way he would do this was if he could just automatically have it lifted. Well there is not any guarantee. There is not even a real established process. So what the Planning Office is going to do 2 PZM1. 8. 9l is to amend the ordinance and establish a process for lifting deed restrictions and what condition, what level of standards have to be maintained. Graeme: When that process is determined would that retroactively affect all the ones that have previously been approved? Kim: At this point I would say it would apply to any accessory dwelling restricted to resident occupancy. Sara: All of these things are required by the Housing. But would the Housing Authority actually sign the lease? Kim: No. The Housing Authority approves the lease and it gets copied to them. Jasmine asked for public comments. John Doremus: I live next door. I don't think we have any objections to the extra unit. We are looking at the parking provision for this unit. They don't have to make any provisions do they? And that is kind of sad because we have a rare situation in that alley that this house uses for their garage access and parking in that 2 if not 3 of the houses have no other access. They hope to get access by virtue of the 7th street extension. Everybody on both sides of that alley use the alley as access. It is a very busy alley and it will work only if there is no parking in the alley. I don't know where these people intend to park. As I recall there is no provision for the caretaker unit for parking. Kim: The caretaker unit does not carry mandatory parking on it. If the Commission sees fit they can require it. The site plan shows that there are 2 spaces inside the garage and 3 on the outside driveway accessing the alley. So in effect as far as parking spaces for a 4 bedroom house technically the house itself requires 4 spaces so the extra space could be considered for the accessory unit. Doremus: Well if that stays mandatory I would appreciate it. So often that doesn't get done. I would feel more comfortable if accessible mandatory parking were provided for the caretaker unit and did not interfere with the garage access. We really need that because of the extra use of that alley. There were no further comments from the public. Jasmine closed the public portion of the hearing. 3 PZM1. 8. 9l MOTION Roger: I make a motion to approve the conditional use for a resident occupied accessory dwelling unit for Lots K and L, Block 8, Townsite of Aspen with the conditions being the same as on Planning Office memo dated December 28, 1990. Mari seconded the motion. Richard: On the parking, is there any restriction on parking in the alley as it exists or is it simply that people have agreed not to use the alley for parking. Kim: There is no signage in the alley. Doremus: It is used like a secondary street because because of 2 houses it makes their only access and all the other houses have their garages facing it. It is a very busy alley. People do park in the alley. We make an effort to get them to move and sometimes the answer is "There is no other place to go". I think this is the time not to make it worse. Kim: You could add a 3rd condition that 3 outside parking spaces on site be constructed. Roger: I amend my motion to include a 3rd condition stating that the developer shall provide 3 exterior hard surface parking places. Mari: I amend my second to the motion. Everyone voted in favor of the motion except Bruce and Jasmine. Motion carried. GOLF COURSE PUD AMENDMENT Jasmine: I will entertain a motion to table this hearing to January 22, 1991. Roger: I so move. Mari seconded the motion with all in favor. RUBEY EMPLOYEE HOUSING REFERRAL (Commission members had made a site visit before meeting today) 4 PZM1. 8. 9l Ellen sassano, Planning: record. Made presentation as attached in The purpose of the referral is to get comments from you. Bruce: I thought I understood you to say that they were talking about some kind of restriction of access to the lower bench for the residents of the project? In other words I can use it because I don't live there but the people that live there can't use it? Mark Fuller: The kind of restriction that I had in mind was not so much restriction on access to the property but rather restrictions against any development outside of the general building envelope that you see there. That has no development anyplace else on the property--things like play areas or volleyball courts or bar-b-que pits or anything that would tend to disturb or change the existing environment. So you have access to it but not change it. Graeme: If the Braden property were bought by the County, would that affect the price of the units? Mark: The cost of the Braden property would be born by the County's housing bond and by accumulated savings in the County general fund and would not be supported by the return of the sale of units on the Rubey property. The Commissioner's guidelines on the density on the Rubey property has been to insure that whatever density is on the Rubey property can stand on it's own 2 feet so we wouldn't have to subsidize the property in order for it to pay for itself. So the reduction of density from 24 to 18--the cost of each unit does go up but that is only to cover the development cost of the project, not the acquisition of the Braden property. Graeme: Also from the County's point of view, do you not want to see the 6 units on the Braden property? Mark: The 6 units that we are taking off the Braden property are free market units. And the idea there was to provide that portion of the Braden property as open space amenity to the neighborhood. Graeme: When we were out there a lot of people felt that using the existing easement would be better than new pavement and such. Could you use the existing easement and also buy the Braden property and put affordable housing units on the Braden property? 5 PZM1. 8. 9l Mark: That doesn't speak to the concerns about the density of the neighborhood. It doesn't speak to the concerns about the impact of the Hunter Creek access of the existing traffic and parking patterns in the Hunter Creek Condominiums. So it obviously produces more affordable housing and it does increase the amount of pavement up there but the concerns that have been voiced from residents in the neighborhood are in this revised plan in terms of new pavement if we were to go with the Braden property access, we are basically trading new pavement in this stretch for new pavement in this stretch. I am not sure there is a tremendous amount of difference there. Bruce: Have you heard from the Spruce Street and the homeowners in that area? It looks to me like we are looking at Meadows 7th st vs. 8th st kind of thing here. And the Hunter Creek people have spoken. Maybe others haven't spoken yet. Mark: We have heard from some of those and there are some concerns there certainly. The biggest difference is that with the Braden access we are putting the Rubey traffic directly onto the public street that is currently engineered to accept the increased traffic that Rubey would generate. So we are not substantially changing or overloading any existing roads up there. Whereby going through the Hunter Creek access we are making a substantial change for their existing traffic patterns. In effect a private driveway and parking lot system into a at least semi-public road system in that we are not going to be able to effectively limit traffic in and out of that Hunter Creek access to residents of Rubey. It could be used by anyone going to visit. It could be used even conceivably by people using the Rubey parking lots access to Hunter Creek Trail. So I think that was a general recognition on the part of the P&Z and the Commissioner's as well that given the 2 alternatives the public was less impacted by the Spruce st alternative. And in fact in terms of public response we have had 2 or 3 people who live on Spruce st and in Centennial area express some concern about increased traffic levels but it hasn't been nearly as volatile and vociferous as the objections we got from Hunter Creek. Roger: I was on the site visit and to me from a philosophical point of view it is absurd for the County to buy property to turn it into a road be it a 5th or a 6th of that property. Apparently the County wants to limit automobile use by buying property and turning it into roads and that seems to me a strange philosophical dichotomy. To me being on the property it makes it apparent sense to use that access through Hunter Creek there. Now as far as their arguments the traffic caused by this will certainly be no more 6 PZM1. 8 . 91 than the traffic down in this area right here in this area up here--what do you have--24 cars there was it? 27 cars--OK. If you plant yourself about here that would be about the equivalent amount of cars crossing this point right here which now you will have crossing this point up here. Yes indeed it is a change for them. They were a dead end parking space. But life is tough folks and why cop out to the automobile? The sensible access to me is directly off Spruce into this parking lot into there. I am looking at it from a practical planning sense. Now with respect to the Braden parcel. The height of absurdity is after you end up with a road through this piece of property you end up with this tiny little parcel and you want to call it a pocket park. Well--Iook where all the open space is right here folks! They are arguing for a little piece of undeveloped property and this whole mass of open space over here seems to be the height of absurdity. I would like to see that if the County purchases that parcel is to me it is an ideal location for affordable housing. This is an urban area. We have the density there. That is where the density belongs planning-wise. And so to purchase this piece of property and acquiesce to a road and this little bunch of open space which I think is insignificant in the overall terrain is absurd. Sara: I have been participating in some of the community plan. I was very interested in the first report from the planners from Alan who said that Hunter Creek is really greatly underdeveloped for what they proposed and can see it going to its maximum that there is a lot more population that can go in there. I disagree with Roger. I would hate to see Ralph Braden's free market units in that parcel or employee units. I think it is just beginning to honeycomb over there. It is too much. It is also taking away from people's views which I think is interfering with rights. I think a view is as much and sunlight is as much a part of property rights as anything else. I think the site we visited for the Rubey development is terrific. It is a beautiful piece of property and the units that are proposed for there I think can sit in there. I don't want to see anything go on the Braden. And that might mean the purchasing of it. It is open space, Roger, but stuff way below really can't be viewed from--it is an obstruction if stuff goes in on the Braden parcel. 7 PZM1. 8. 9l I hear what the people are saying. You have to respect that. I see people coming in and out of that Hunter Creek. I am sure it is dangerous but the County does have the access. We would be taking away--they would have to redesign their parking I guess is what would have to happen and that would only become a road and no parking. Maybe that is the best thing to happen there. Graeme: I tended to agree with Roger when I was up there. But I am starting to look at it a little differently in that by removing the 6 free market units from that lot I think will decrease congestion up there and make it more livable for a lot of people who need more livability. Also while there is an awful lot of open space right in that neighborhood it is going to be deed restricted not to be able to be used for a play ground or something like that. I think the Braden property could be both open space and also be quite a useful amenity for the neighborhood in terms of a playground. Richard: I am thinking about the same way Graeme is. I like putting it through the Braden parcel. It separates the Rubey development from the Hunter Creek development. And I think a little bit of circuitous route, a few extra yards of pavement is worthwhile to create that sense of separateness. I spent a lot of time up in that area and even though the Braden parcel has a cyclone fence around it that having that open space in the middle of all the development is very valuable. And as a park use it is quite different than the open space in Hunter Creek which is essentially wild space. It is open for human use rather than open for mainly natural and both are necessary. You need those pockets inside urban areas just a much as you need the wild area outside of them. So I support that general plan. I wonder about the design of the road as it is now. I would like to see it pulled a little further away from the 1300 building there if that can be engineered through this section here. It would give a little more buffer here because this place that we walked across is a nice lawn type area. So increase that there and look at developing park use or golf through here. I would like to see whatever negotiations can be entered into to guarantee that there be pedestrian access from here out to Lone pine Road through here that Hunter Creek doesn't throw up a fence and then an incentive to that would be developing this as a park available to people from all developments in the area. I live right over in here and it has been a real problem to me to have to go all the way around this way to get to Centennial rather than be able to walk through. I am really upset by the fencing off of various parcels including this one. There should 8 PZM1. 8.91 at least be pedestrian access through here if not vehicular access. There be some sort of gate that you can walk through but can't drive through so that people wouldn't have to go all the way out to get on to Spruce st. Also on this water line here there are a few trees growing in the parcel there. Are those being new plantings? Ellen: It may have been just been shrubbing up the plan. But maintenance for the water line will have to be fairly accessible. Richard: It would be good to put some kind of screen in here so that you don't look straight through the trail up into the development so that you aren't looking into stripped-out torn-out ground down in the open space area. Whatever can be done to re- vegetate this area whether it be shrubs or trees or whatever. Mari: I still don't buy the argument that the road has to be put in_mumble_ however I have to agree with that end of the table that with the open space really very usable as far as street noise get out and stretch in there. But the main concern I have is the concern that the access to the bus. I think that it is very important that maybe a trail could cut through the back way to--I don't even think that would make it convenient enough though to be an auto disincentive. It has got to be convenient. It can't be just something that is possible. It has to be something that is preferable. And that is definitely not preferable. Ellen: Do you think that the turn-around shown on the Braden parcel is close enough for bus pickup or is that still too far? Mari: No. Jasmine: I don't either. Ellen: I think that the only closer option would be bus pickup in the Hunter Creek parking lot. Roger: And of course with no exit out there you would never get a bus going through. Jasmine: I have a friend who lives in this building in Hunter Creek. And I have another friend who lives in Centennial over here. So when Richard was talking about all this fencing these people who can see each other's windows cannot get to each other without going through this whole elaborate thing. There is no bus that goes here. If you live in this part of Hunter Creek you have to go walking down this. If you have to carry groceries, it is not convenient. 9 PZM1. 8. 9l If you are going to live over here and you want people not to use cars and you want them to try to find some kind of a way to use the bus, forget it! You are going to have trouble keeping this down to 27 cars. It is just not possible. People can't live like this. You have to have some kind of bus coming in here probably through this alignment because people in this part of Centennial--people in this part of Hunter Creek and this part of Rubey can all use some kind of bus thing that should be right around here. That is where you need to have it because it could be used by all of these people. And it would actually be used. That is where you are going to get people out of their automobiles. It just seems to me that you have an opportunity to put a transportation element there that is actually going to be useful to people. And not just design on the basis that this is for Rubey and this is for Hunter Creek and this is for Centennial. It is something that can be used by all of them. Mari: I am surprised too that with this new development RFTA hasn't considered increasing their frequency of service because as they found on the Woody Creek run, they doubled the service and they doubled their ridership right away. I believe that some kind of access has to be included. Graeme: I was wondering if there could be a I-way bus loop coming down through the Braden property and picking up people where Jasmine was talking about and then exiting out the Hunter Creek access. That would eliminate a turn-around. Go right through the Braden property and then take a left-- Jasmine: I just can't see how public projects like this could possibly ignore other public projects in the same neighborhood and not try to get some sort of public transportation available to the 3 different public projects in that area also available to private projects instead of forbidding people automobiles and try to eliminate parking spaces when the obvious solution is to make public transit available to these 3 things. The city owns most of this property somehow or other--or will. There has got to be a way of designing a way to make public access and public transit in that neighborhood. Roger: I will acquiesce to the road because of the numbers here. But as far as public transportation, at the very least the Spruce st access should be open to transportation. At the very least there should be trail access through this area because if we never get public transportation through here the closest point is over at Spruce st here somewhere for them to pick up the bus. 10 PZMl.8.91 To me the logical transportation loop is probably through the Hunter Creek parking lots and to be able to exit out of that parking lot instead of dead end the thing. And if that can be limited transportation exist, that is find but-- Mari: If there was a loop through the Hunter Creek lot it would actually make all of Hunter Creek more accessible for more people because the far buildings are quite a hike. Jasmine: People who live in that far building are always in their cars because it is such a truck up and down hill to the bus. People in those 2 buildings would be using buses if they didn't have to walk so far and go up and down hill to the bus stop. Roger: Open up the end of this parking lot for hopefully transportation but very definitely pedestrian. Jasmine: And take the fences out. Roger: Yes and get something going across this property--get pedestrian trails or access where you can get it. Jasmine: Or at least don't prevent them. I really think the City should purchase the Braden property. What you actually do _' with it--whether you put some housing in there or whether you leave it open space or not--I think that has to be subordinated to the transportation plan. You may need to use certain portions of the Braden property for some form of transportation. And then put the other uses to not be done until you decide how much of it you need for the transportation link. Fuller: There is a bus stop at the upper end of Hunter Creek on Lone pine Road. Jasmine: Not where I am talking about up near the top of the tennis courts. Roger: And no way of getting to it. Jasmine: Why are you making it so difficult for people to use the bus? Bruce: I concur that the bus access needs to be worked out. I don't buy into the notion that they ought to run the road through the Braden property. I agree with what Roger said before he acquiesced. I think the logical access is through Hunter Creek instead of running a separate road and as much as I am sympathetic toward the notion of a pocket park or some other kind 11 PZMl.8.91 of usable park, the fact is land in the floor of this valley is so limited and our housing needs are so great that I would much rather leave the Braden property in such a way that it can be used as a park. But it can also be used as employee housing if that need is great enough and that is the will of the people. I hate to see us foreclose whatever options we might have with that property if it is indeed bought by the County. Let's preserve our options. Let's stay as flexible as we can. Let's use the access through Hunter Creek. Let's buy the Braden property if we can buy it. But land is so precious, let's don't foreclose what our options are for that land. We may decide that we really do have to put some housing there and deal with open space and deal with parks in some way other than the Braden property. Graeme: I could see a scenario where the Braden property was bought and the Hunter Creek access was still used. I am not crazy about the Braden access over the other one. But I do think that the Braden property is a plug in the middle of a lot of things. I agree with Bruce in that there are a lot of things it could be used for. Roger: well. My total concurrence is with Bruce. He stated it very Jasmine: In general if there are any points that the Commission feels strongly on I think it is yes, it is a good idea to buy the Braden parcel. And that we need not designate exactly what we are going to use it for right away and not preclude any options. Then it is the necessity for the public transportation access and whatever it takes to get an additional co-operation from RFTA in terms of whatever that route may be and increase frequency on the route. This is something that we really can't do much about as Planning Commission except say it. But the frequency of the route is probably as important as the route itself in terms of getting people to use the public transportation. And part of the problem of the congestion in this neighborhood could certainly be alleviated by having a public transit system that is more functional. This commission would like to see additional work done on that particular aspect of the plan. Roger: And reducing the barriers to pedestrian separate these parcels. Let's get the parcels pedestrian-wise and not be barred off. ways that integrated Sara: In this County/City Community Planning process they hope to come out with an optimum population for the valley or 12 PZM1. 8. 9l especially this end of the valley. will they come out with how many employees we are supposed to house? Baker: I don't know that there is an absolute. What is the maximum buildout of the commercial area and how many jobs does that mean? I don't think that at this point we have thought about that. Bruce: On this very point there are 2 different carrying capacities that we talked about before. One is the physical carrying capacity and then the other is what we find acceptable as a way of life. Physical may far exceed what we find acceptable as a way of life in this end of the valley. I hope the planning process is taking that into consideration. Baker: That is a good point. The physical capacity is far in excess of anything anyone is going to accept around here. The big challenge for us is to have qualitative factors in the equation as well as quantitive and come out with something that is acceptable. Bruce: They need to be done in a way that is constitutionally defendable. Richard: The only real problem that I see with the neighborhood is how close it comes to the Hunter Creek Trail. On that one wedge it is very close to that building on the far left there. And again the trail can be and maybe should be re-aligned down into the flood plain. I think it is a nice transition from the really high density of Hunter Creek to the single family above it on Smuggler Mtn. In some ways it is a shame to give up any open space but basically the open space that is there serves as a front yard for those 3 or 4 single family residences above it. For people using the Hunter Creek Trail it's fairly minimal. You go through there and you can still see the houses above so that does urbanize the experience of the trail. You have to get up past here anyway before you feel you are in the creek. That abortion on the lower end of Red Mtn destroys the experience anyway. Roger: This area to me being in it--from where I went to, it seemed to impinge upon the perceived open space mostly of houses from Red Mtn which I don't shed a crocodile tear for. So otherwise visually it doesn't seem to interfere too much with other people's open space. Jasmine: community afford to It seems to me that there is definitely a need in this for day care facilities especially for people who can't send their children to expensive private schools. The 13 PZM1. 8.91 ,. thing that bothers me is almost every time you see any kind of project I would really rather see the planning for some kind of day care as more of centrally determined thing so that we don't have 55 day care centers all of a sudden everywhere with none of them licensed or qualified. It might be a better idea to really establish what the day care needs are in the community and have them dealt with in a more responsible manner. It is being done in such a piecemeal fashion that I don't think it is really beneficial to the community. Roger: The day care people have gone through an extensive survey of what is needed. Richard: There is something to be said for day care facilities in the neighborhoods as well as a downtown facility accessible to everyone. They can stay in their own neighborhood instead of being trucked downtown. Jasmine: Somewhere along the line as long as there is an overall plan I think that would be a very sensible thing to do. Sara: I think that opens up the units to other businesses. At Midland Park we--there is no business supposed to be operating out of it. Well, of course, some people have offices. But nothing commercial is supposed to happen. It is fine--neighbors taking care of each other's children but if you are going to get into day care, it shouldn't be in a unit. It should be a community center that serves all those neighborhoods. Richard: The Braden house. There being no further business Jasmine adj ourned the meeting. Time was 6:45pm. \ \",. ,0 Janicl'l / ~. Clerk '........ 14