Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19910604 o ~ r RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 4. 1991 vice Chairlady Jasmine Tygre called meeting to order at 4:30pm. Answering roll call were Sara Garton, Richard compton, Bruce Kerr, Mari Peyton, Roger Hunt and Jasmine Tygre. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS There were none. STAFF COMMENTS Dianne: amendment. of July 16, You have previously tabled the Aspen Villas PUD We again request this item be tabled to date certain 1991. It is a public hearing. Jasmine: I will entertain a motion to table this hearing to date certain of July 16, 1991. Bruce: I so move. Roger seconded the motion with all in favor. There was discussion regarding resolution for Welton Anderson. -- Discussion as to Chair, vice Chair and Second Vice Chair. Also there will be an official appointing of new members of Planning commission on June 10. PUBLIC COMMENT There were none. MINUTES MARCH 26. 1991 APRIL 9. 1991 Roger made a motion to adopt minutes of March 26, 1991. Sara seconded the motion with all in favor. Roger made a motion to adopt minutes of April 9, 1991. Mari seconded the motion. Richard: I have a few comments and misspellings. On page 20 the last paragraph in my own comments. It says strong man. It should be straw man. Jasmine: Did you have any more Richard? Richard: No. "'. Roger: On page 29 there are a couple of blanks for Amy. ." ----~ _._.-...,~ . ---~-- ~ PZM6.4.91 The correction was "The location of the rehearsal facility is concerned". Everyone then voted in favor of accepting these minutes. CLARENDON CONDOMINIUMS PUD AMENDMENT Jasmine opened the public hearing. Leslie made presentation as attached in record. I just have one addition to my conditions of approval. That is under 1b regarding the shuttle service I would add language to be "The site shall be included in the amended PUD agreement." Larry Yaw, Architect: Submitted a certificate of mailing and photo of posting of notice. (attached in record) The architectural challenge here was to create a design strategy such that individual expansion could occur and that would result in an archi tecturally cohesive proj ect at any stage of it's development. " In general we are an FAR sense. neighborhood. about 1/2 of what most of the projects are in So we think this is compatible in the Some of the units are 2 bedroom and some are 3 bedroom. On the lower level we are proposing 170ft expansion opportunity for an expanded living room or atrium. That would be on all 15 units. On the upper level 5 bedrooms would be added and these units are 245sqft deep within the roof form that exists. The bay window which I will explain the reason for. It is a massing architectural reason, would add another 26sqft to that. The master bedroom on all units is on the upper level and we are showing a change of opportunity here on each of 15 master bedrooms of 170sqft. The building is characterized by emerging roof forms out of the ground and then terminates along the roof. We are building on that notion. So we think it is an architectural improvement--not an architectural departure. This does not change the basic building massing. It does not change the building footprint. Mari: Are you saying the number of bedrooms will not change beyond what is represented here? Leslie: Right. 2 PZM6.4.91 Jasmine: Because it makes it sound as though if somebody had a child, they would have to come in for an amended PUD. Leslie: So we should say the of bedrooms will not change and by the management ____mumble. Sara: Larry, you talked about ultimate buildout and your FAR actually could come in in a couple more years. Do you actually see this as ultimate buildout. assurances the number that the shuttle service provided Yaw: We do, yes. Association. Based on the terms with the Clarendon Roger: One major question I have here because you are showing the ultimate buildout there. But actually the buildout is dependent upon the individual unit owners, isn't it? Yaw: This creates the maximum. Roger: The only concern I have and we really don't have architectural review but it is going to look real strange having one unit with the new treatment and the old unit with the old cutout treatment--contemporary next to new. Yaw: We know to do this. together. that there are 4 or 5 people immediately who wish That in and of itself is enough to hold this Roger: Then the reduction in parking. Because as I recall originally when this went through parking was one of the limiting factors in this entire project. What I would like to do now is that we get this van service placed in this amendment as part of the proposal. (It was already) Richard: Regarding the parking I read in the memo where there is an agreement at least on some of the unit owners that they are allowed 2 spaces and that is all for their parking. Schiffer: There are passes. gives out passes. There is an outside manager who Richard: And that will be maintained also? Schiffer: Yes, it will. Richard: Put that in our amendment also that as part of the reduction in parking the pass system be maintained. 3 PZM6.4.91 Leslie: We can say again under 1b "The applicant shall provide assurances to Planning Dept that the number of bedrooms will not change and that the shuttle service and parking passes system provided by the manager will be maintained". Mari: There are 15 units but we are only talking about 5-- Yaw: 52-bedroom. Mari: So does this mean that everyone has the opportunity to do this or only 5. Yaw: Only 5 have the opportunity. There exists 52-bedroom units. They are the only ones that have the opportunity to add to a complement of 3 bedroom. Mari: In other words a 3 bedroom unit couldn't expand. Yaw: The only thing it can expand are there is a partial master bedroom expansion. They can add or may be required to add the bay window onto the back to complete that and as well they have the potential to add the atrium area expansion. In terms of bedrooms--3 bedrooms can only expand the master bedroom. Mari: Have there been any incremental additions that happened before this? Yaw: Just one conversion since it's conceptual for 2 bedrooms. Jasmine: So eventually we have an all 3 bedroom project. Leslie: One of my conditions of approval--#4--I would say that all representation of this amendment shall be adhered to and my first one is one additional bedroom to each 2 bedroom unit. What they are doing is they are making a development plan and their development plan is in place until such time that they want it amended again. The PUD plan is under the governing umbrella that is in place. And that is why a PUD plan is so unique. So all anybody has to do is just pull their building permit. Sara: And if they can't afford to do it for 20 years from now? Leslie: If it is consistent with this amendment and there hasn't been another amendment to change this then they are OK. Bruce: I am curious as to why there is no employee housing mitigation. 4 PZM6.4.91 Leslie: If they were wanting to add one additional unit or 2 or 3 additional units onto the existing multi-family then they would be subj ect to growth management and then we would get into employee mitigation. It is different when you talk about people who add commercial or office square footage. Employee mitigation is based upon the additional square footage. For residential employee mitigation is based upon new development. Bruce: So if we add bedrooms that square footage doesn't count. Leslie: Right. Mari: To say that expanding or adding bedrooms doesn't have any impact is not necessarily a correct assumption. Roger: It is definitely an impact. Jasmine: So says the Commission! I would like to comment that I don't see any major problems with this. The question or comment that I have about subsection (b) is that the shuttle service is now officially incorporated into the conditions of approval and so therefore the applicant is put on notice that we expect the shuttle service to continue. ...... But then we get into the situation that if it doesn't--so what?! I think this is a problem that we have with a lot of our regulations. I have every reason to believe that these applicants will continue to do this because this is what the owners want and it is what they have been doing. And there hasn't been a major change in ownership or management. But we have these conditions here which we think are really helpful and are really important but we have absolutely no provision whatsoever to enforce them. Amy: Basically we enforce them. Take the situation at the Jerome where the Jerome was to put employee parking in their basement. They never did. Finally we got calls from the neighbors that said all of the Jerome employees were parking in front of their houses. We went back and checked the files and found out it was a condition of approval for the Jerome and we enforce it. If we start getting complaints from the people around the Clarendon that there is a parking problem we might go back and check and find out that they are not doing the shuttle service. If we find out it is a problem with parking in the neighborhood then we do enforce it. 5 PZM6.4.91 Jasmine: But what do you do? So if you got these complaints. And suppose you went over there and said "Well, you are not doing this shuttle service which was promised in your PUD amendment". And they said "Yes, we are not". Amy: Then we go to court. Jasmine: And then they have to remove the bedrooms? Amy: No. They have to put in the shuttle service. Leslie: We could have a monitor and every 2 months we would check on the shuttle service. Remember the Clarendon had an approval to add bedrooms several years ago and didn't add the parking that they were supposed to add. They came back in last year wanting to amend their PUD and we discovered that they had not met one of their conditions of approval. That is another way that we enforce. Jasmine: Historically we have been very careful about putting things in conditions and everyone just sort of acts as though they were never in there in the first place. Jasmine then asked for public comment on this application. There was none and she closed the public portion of the hearing. Jasmine then asked the applicant if they had any problems with any of the conditions. Yaw: No we don't. Roger: Can we get a representation as to what the shuttle serv1ce is now so we have an official reference as to what there is now that will be maintained through this condition. Schiffer agreed to do this. MOTION Roger: I move to recommend approval of the PUD amendment for the Clarendon condominiums subject to conditions 1 through 5 of the Planning Office memo dated June 4, 1991. (attached in record) except that condition 2b to be modified to read "The applicant shall provide assurances to the Planning and Engineering Depts that the number of bedrooms will not change and that the shuttle service and parking pass system presently provided by the Clarendon manager will be maintained. Language to this effect shall be included in the PUD amendment. Richard seconded the motion with all in favor. 6 / PZM6.4.9l WEST HOPKINS AVENUE REZONING TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING ZONE DISTRICT Jasmine opened the public portion of the hearing. Leslie made presentation as attached in record. Carr Kunze, Director of Housing Authority: The proposal that we have here for the West Hopkins Development is a p!oposal that is consistent with the production plan. This 1S an 11 unit proposal. A relatively small development in context with the Shadow Mtn. community. The concept here is a carriage/townhouse mixture type of development. This development that readily bridges the concept of a single family uses in the surrounding development and multi family type of uses and related commercial other uses that also abut the development space. We are looking for a mixture of categories 1, 2 and 3. That is essentially lower, moderate and upper moderate income groups that we will be attempting to serve through this development. Basically we feel that we will be in the categories 2 and 3. Bob Nevins: As a representative for the Housing Authority what we are really excited about is not only to carry forward our production plan but I think more importantly to implement some of the broader goals that the community has expressed. That being to a reintroduction of families, of real people that are in real houses conducting real lives--having to work for a living. The proj ect is purchase si tes became really a 12,000sqft--4 city lots. that city council acquired critical issue. This site is This is one as in-town zoned R-6. of the housing Jasmine asked if there was public comment. There was none and she closed the public portion of the hearing. Richard: Something that Bob forgot to mention is that there is also some sort of pending application for an A-H zone on the northwest corner of Main and 7th for possibly a much denser development by Hadid at the Bavarian Inn site. That is dorms. Roger: For the record in putting it in the context of what the P&Z thought of when we had this sort of spot zoning of R-15, R-6 and now all of a sudden affordable housing. At the time we wanted to get the R-15 understandably near the outskirts of town so it ended up as being a transition. That is why it would appear at this point to be sort of an aberration to throw the density at this end of town. 7 PZM6.4.91 But things have changed and one of the things is the dire need for affordable housing and I think every zone district has to take it's fair share of affordable housing. So in that context I think this is a perfectly legitimate zone change. Leslie: If and when this is rezoned to A-H the only thing that can happen in the A-H zone is a minimum of 70% affordable deed restricted housing. They are proposing 100% affordable housing so if in fact it all burns down and the new owner has it they cannot do anything unless they rezoned. MOTION Roger: I move to recommend rezoning of the southwest corner of West Hopkins Avenue and South 7th Street, Lots K, L, M and N, Block 19 amending the official zoning map from R-6 to Affordable Housing AH. Sara seconded the motion with all in favor. RFTA/RUBEY PARK TRANSIT CENTER GMOS EXEMPl'ION FOR PUBLIC FACILITY Dianne, Planning Office made presentation as attached in record. Dan Blankenship: We are expanding out approximately 9ft toward the alleyway which is the bus circulation. The actual expansion is for employees only. This was a seating, eating, break-room area. Then upstairs is the loft for more of a sit-down conversational space. There will be no change as for materials or even the looks of the building. There is some adjustment in this elevation with the increase of windows to get more light into the employee space. That is really not a basic increase. Richard: Is there any change in the curb on the north side? Dan: There is no change in the curb at all. Richard: And how wide will the sidewalk be once this is done? Dan: The sidewalk in that area will be 7ft. Richard: That is my only concern because that is an important circulation area for people boarding and unloading from the ski busses. I would consider 7ft to be minimum with people walking by with their skis and in their ski boots. To get 2 people passing I think you need that 7ft. Mari: This is one of those times when the representations from the previous SPA I don't think quite met as far as landscaping on 8 PZM6.4.91 the site. There are dead trees. There are just empty spots all over in those planting areas and the representation shows green and what they have done is put wood chips here and there. It is mostly mud and it was represented at the SPA stage originally that all the trees on the site would be replaced with trees of the same size. Well maybe in 20 years they will be the same size but I would like to see as a condition of approval on the expansion that the landscaping is improved up to what was represented at the previous SPA approval. It is very skimpy and baron and it was represented to be very green. Roger: You are showing a neck-out in front of the transportation center into Durant. That doesn't exist. I hope it doesn't get put in. Dan: No. The idea is to maintain the site as shown or as existing concerning the curbs and walkway areas and planters etc. As for the landscaping you have me at a loss here. Jasmine: There may be some city involvement with that. But the point is that the representation of the landscaping should be taken care of and you may have to get some City co-operation on that. MOTION Mari: Basically the representation of the original SPA as far as landscaping which showed all of the planters would be green space--not mud. Dianne: I have a recommendation. Maybe we can--this has sort of caught us off guard. We can review--I have the original application for the SPA that was approved. We can review that and it has a statement in there that regarding the Parks Dept. Perhaps we can get together with them and determine if land- scaping was represented, why it is not in. I hate to put a condition on it unless we really have to. Jasmine: The point is that we are not sure even now whether this is RFTA's responsibility or the Park's Dept's responsibility. We need something that is going to make this kick in and make sure that whoever is responsible for doing it that it does get done. Dianne: From what I am reading I think the Parks Dept is probably responsible for that. Mari: But it is RFTA's responsibility to see that the Park's Dept does it and that is why I think we should include it as a condition. 9 PZM6.4.91 Roger: The applicant shall work determining the compliance with landscaping plans. with the Planning the previous and Dept in existing Mari: Sounds kind of weak. Roger: We are depending upon the Planning Dept. and of course they know the situation within the city and RFTA. Mari: I think the condition should say something along the line that RFTA will bring the landscaping into compliance with the previously represented SPA landscaping plan. MOTION Mari: I move to recommend an exemption for growth management for the Rubey Park Transit Center expansion with the single condition that prior to CO the landscaping plan the Rubey Park Transit SPA represented will be complied with and specifically the green areas of the planters and that the dead trees will be replaced with living trees. Richard: I will second for purposes of discussion. Dan: Considering this there may be somewhere along the line there is a gray area between the Parks Dept and RFTA's responsibilities. There may be some delay in this situation. My question is whether or not you are going to require this implementation prior to CO. Jasmine: That would be the motion. And I think Mari's intention there is that in the time since Rubey Park Transit Center has been up the condition has not been adhered to which was part of the original representation there which has been a couple of years for landscaping to have taken place which it has not. And I would tend to agree with her that we need some kind of mechanism to make sure that this actually gets done and doesn't get bounced back and forth between Parks and open space and whoever else. Mari: I don't think it is the problem that is the Parks Dept is going to do the work. It is just up to the transit, RFTA to see that the Parks Dept does the work. That's all. Bruce: The problem not work for RFTA. Dept. with that, Mari, is that the Parks Dept does They don't have any leverage over the Parks 10 PZM6.4.91 Mari: But the application and the Park. It was submitted by RFTA. see that it gets done no matter. Dianne: There is an SPA agreement between the City of Aspen and the RFTA. On page 4--"The City agrees that it shall be responsible for maintenance and snow removal and all pedestrian landscape in the particular area". So I think it is pretty clear that it is a city issue. So the City is responsible for it. SPA was submitted by the Rubey It is their responsibility to Mari: I also have philosophical problems with the fact that someone can make a representation and then make an agreement with someone to do their work and then say "Gee! I can't help it. It's not my problem because I gave a lease to someone or I gave a contract to someone to do this work and if they don't want to do it, it is not my fault". I find that to be a philosophically accountable situation in which we have given approvals. Bruce: There really are 2 problems. One is whether the applicant through it's contractor complied with the original application where all the trees and shrubs were originally put in. That is one problem. The other is the maintenance where there are dead trees and whose responsibility is that. It is pretty clear that it is the Parks Dept. So I think both questions have to be resolved. Did the applicant comply originally? And if they did they are off the hook and the City's Parks Dept is responsible. Richard: If you want to put a condition of RFTA to review the original SPA and if RFTA was negligent in holding up their end of the landscaping plan, they must complete the work, rectify it before a CO. If it is not their fault and it is the Parks Dept for the lack of maintenance--any condition is that there is only- Roger: They should use due diligence in getting the Parks Dept to comply. Mari: Well if the motion says that they must comply, if they have complied, they have complied. If they haven't they need to rectify it. So what is the problem? Richard: Complied with the terms of the original SPA. Jasmine: And the other part I think Dianne can cover in her memo to city Council as to the Parks Dept responsibility as far as maintenance. Everyone then voted in favor of the motion. 11 PZM6.4.91 MOTION Roger: I would like to further move to request the Planning Dept in their memo to city council discuss this problem and indicating that there is apparently a problem with the Parks Dept as a subcontractor to RFTA in conformance with or conforming with replacement of dead trees or maintenance of the landscaping plan. Mari seconded the motion with all in favor. Jasmine: What we informal I will now adjourn the regular part are going to be doing now with the with the Housing Authority. of this meeting. West Hopkins is Time was 6:15pm. Jan1 12