Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19910618 JI..~ ~ " RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 18. 1991 Chairlady Jasmine Tygre called meeting to order at 4:30pm. Answering roll call were new Commissioner David Brown, Sara Garton, Richard Compton, Bruce Kerr, Mari Peyton, Roger Hunt and Jasmine Tygre. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Mari: is up and I This is probably going to be my last meeting since my term in July. I want to say I have enjoyed serving on the Board have enjoyed working with all of you. Bruce: issuing as long We have just completed remodeling my a formal invitation for a site visit. as they don't nose around too much. lodge and will be Staff can come too Roger: Concerning the in-town school site activity and what has been happening so far. It appears now that the yellow brick site will be for the Learning Center. That entire block will stay under the control of the school system. That leaves the red brick site. I think of it as 2 halves--the new site which contains some class rooms and then the old site which is a more of a problem for remodeling financially. I continue to express P&Z's attitude that we believe those sites should stay in public access category. There are all sorts of financial problems in getting it into the public sector. Dianne, Planning: The School Board had the site appraised. That appraisal was finished yesterday and they have appraised the site as-is at $4 million dollars. That is a considerable cost and I know that at this point Frank Peters would like to go before the City Council and discuss with them what their interest is in regard to funding sources for that. Alternatives were to do some limited affordable housing and free market single family lots on site in conjunction with keeping the old building which has historic value. And also trying to develop certain portions of it as a neighborhood park area. Other options were to utilize a portion of it for free market housing and the other portion of it for park site which would obviously be demolition of the entire structure. Jasmine asked for copies of the alternatives for all of the Commissioners. There was discussion regarding election of officers and decision was made to wait until 2 new appointees are on board. PZM6.18.91 PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS There was discussion on holding a workshop. It was determined to wait for the appointment of new board members for this workshop. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no comments from the public. MINUTES JUNE 4. 1991 Mari: I move to approve minutes of June 4, 1991. Roger seconded the motion with all in favor. CAFFRAY TOWNHOMES COHO USE REVIEW FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT Jasmine opened the public hearing. Affidavit of mailing and picture of property posting was presented. (Attached in record) Leslie made presentation as attached in record. The applicant stated they had no problem with the conditions of approval. After discussion between Commissioners: Jasmine asked for public comment. Carol Hershey: I guess I am the last of the Mohicans on Cemetery Lane. I live next door to this. I am in between this extravaganza and the extravaganza on the other side. I am not very good at reading those plans but I did have a little feel that maybe the garbage and the parking lot, since that will now be my new view, would be ____mumble. But might be a little something done to-- what we--we have an employee housing unit downstairs and my unit upstairs. And now the apartment downstairs is condominiumized. The downstairs unit will now be totally blocked by that house. I am not suggesting that it shouldn't be. I am just saying that that will be the difference and mine will be partially. But I guess I can't say "Don't do it". So if that is going to be done maybe those few little changes could be done to just make it a little better to look at. And that is a very steep hill in the winter time. And even for us and we are above that house, we really have to start Slowing up 2 PZM6.18.91 prior to the Hampton house on that hill to pull into my driveway. So that is a pretty tricky spot anyway. I have been assured that there is going to be some landscaping. Jasmine: There is no showing on the plans of landscaping. Leslie: It is not there and Gideon and I have talked about it-- that there be more effort made toward landscaping that whole side yard between your property and his. David: Is this part of the subdivision process? Leslie: If they condominiumize. My understanding from her is that they don 't intend to condominiumize but if they wait until the structure is built then they only have one step to City Council. At that point in time a plat will be required to be drawn up with plans. Pat Trod, Architect: I have been working with Jack on this project and I just would like to say that we didn't show landscaping because we didn't pick up what would be required for this meeting. The owners do intend to landscape it very nicely and especially around this trash container. Also about the entry road; Jack worked very closely with the City Engineer to keep that entrance just as high on the hill as he could because we do know that it is a steep hill. We are keeping the entrance as high on the hill as we possibly could because of the recommendation of the Engineers. Also we will be turning around in there so that we will always be going out forward rather than backing out into Cemetery Lane. Landscaping for this proj ect is going to be very nice. They intend to do extensive landscaping. Jasmine asked if there were any further public comments. There were none and she closed the pUblic hearing. In the conditions of approval I think it would be appropriate to mention something to the effect that the applicant has made representations that there will be substantial landscaping. Leslie: I have some draft language. The trash enclosure and parking space on the southwest property boundary shall be revised to incorporate the trash enclosure and 9th parking space within the site. And to provide site plans to be reviewed by the Planning Department. It is my understanding that the applicant is going through condominiumization. At that point in time when they file a plat it will be required that landscaping be shown on the plat. 3 PZM6.18.91 MOTION Roger: I move to approve the Caffray application for conditional use of attached dwelling unit at 1150 Cemetery Lane Lot 3, Block 2, Pitkin Mesa Subdivision with the following conditions: #1, #3, #4, #5, and #6 being the same as on Planning Office memo date June 18, 1991. Condition #2 as stated in that same memo with the addition including landscaping as per representations made at this hearing. And then condition #7 as Leslie stated earlier. Mari: Does the recommendation that they have suggested require above the standard that the code requires for the between dwelling units. Leslie: That is a Building Dept standard that I can check out. Mari: But the standard for between dwelling units would have to apply in this case, wouldn't it? David: As far as I know there are no standards unless you are going for FHA or HUD funding. Everyone then voted in favor of the motion. MCCARTHY CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT Jasmine opened the public hearing. Leslie made presentation as attached in record. Affidavit of public notice by mailing was presented and is attached in record. I have one change to the conditional use. In letter "c" I would change that language to say "The applicant shall demonstrate to the Engineering Dept that historic drainage patterns shall be maintained on site." After discussion Jasmine asked for public comment. Bill Benner, representing adjacent property owner: I have comments right now. I was wondering if you this. And a plan. How big is this going to be? I am not sure have a memo on (These things were presented to him) Benner: Have the adjacent property owners been informed of this before? 4 PZM6.18.91 Jasmine: Yes. They have received legal notice from-- Leslie: They received legal notice once because of the accessory dwelling unit. And they received legal notice when the property was being designated. Roxanne: Then they also received notice for HPC conceptual review. So they have been noticed 3 times on this same project. Plans are available in the Planning Office for people to look at. Benner: will there be another opportunity for Helms to address this or make a comment on it? Roxanne and Leslie answered "No". Benner: Is there going to be an additional parking unit for this? Leslie: There is not a parking requirement because of the historic designation. Benner: The parking space that exists now in the front of the building that access off of Bleeker st--is it a conditional use or has it been a condition of approval to remove that parking space? ?: Yes. Benner: It is not going to be there anymore? Roxanne: HPC is the Commission I think that your questions might be directed to for design considerations. They have already looked at that. They have already reviewed the final development plans for that and that parking space has been required to be eliminated out of the front. They are re-landscaping the whole front to get rid of that parking space. There will be 3 spaces off the alley. Jasmine then asked if there were any further comments. There were no more and she closed the public portion of this hearing. Jan Darrington, representing applicant: The site drainage will be taken care of. I discussed this with the City Engineer and we have a drainage system designed for the property which will take the surface drainage and drain it down in a drain system around the house. The Engineer Dept has said they think this system will work. He will review it again at the time the plans are presented. MOTION Roger: I move to approve the McCarthy application for conditional use for an attached accessory dwelling unit at 214 West Bleeker 5 PZM6.18.91 with the following conditions coming from the Planning Office memo dated June 18, 1991. condition A, B, D, E and F as stated in that memo. Condition C will be re-written in entirety to say "The applicant shall demonstrate to the Engineering Dept that the historic drainage patterns shall be maintained on site." Mari seconded the motion with all in favor. ZIMMAN CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW Affidavit of notice by mail was presented. (attached in record) Leslie made presentation as attached in record. In the language regarding drainage it should read "The applicant shall demonstrate to the Engineering Dept that historic drainage pattern shall be retained on site. Condition G should be struck because there already is a rolled curb there. Roger: Was the roll curb to a garage? Jan: The curb in question is along Hallam street and is installed to City standards. The parking driveway and parking access is from the alley. Roger: Previously where there was parking apparently in front of the place. Was that a driveway curb? Jan: I think there was a curb cut and it will be filled in. Jasmine asked for comments from the public. There were no comments and she closed the public portion of the hearing. MOTION Roger: I move to approve the Zimman application for conditional use of attached accessory dwelling unit at 620 West Hallam with the following conditions as per Planning Office memo dated June 18, 1991. A, B, C, E and F as per the memo. D shall be worded "The applicant shall demonstrate to the Engineering Department that the historic drainage pattern shall be maintained on site." And condition G shall be struck. David seconded the motion with all in favor. Jasmine: When we looked at this the first time the City Council that was in office at the time was very reluctant to enforce that the accessory dwelling unit was actually being occupied. There haven't been any changes. So a lot of these were getting additional dwelling units and additional FAR in some cases and 6 PZM6.18.91 building bigger structures and yet there is no guarantee that any resident is actually living in them. I remember that the Commission at the time felt very strongly that the reason you are building these things is so people can live in them. There won't be empty caverns in the west end and you don't have people traveling from Rifle. And I would like to add this to our work session. We might want to consider our position on that with the new council and the Housing Authority. LEGENDS SPECIAL REVIEW FOR OPEN SPACE Leslie made presentation as attached in record. After discussion: MOTION Sara: I move to accept the special review for use of open space by the Legends of Aspen as recommended by the staff adding to #4 that the gate will be a bi-swing gate and recessed so as not to swing out into the public right-of-way. Mari seconded the motion with all in favor. RIO GRANDE CONCEPTUAL SPA FOR RECYCLING CENTER Sara: When you mention the second option you said that is probably more realistic. Do you mean financially or do you mean the way the procedure works at this time. Duke: Financially. It would be the best use of the space. If we are looking for the most cost effective system it would be Sara: Once you have the building. Duke: Yes. If our regional engineering firm thought that we had the money to build this facility and the space was available, it is a guaranteed deal that they would recommend going the full scale facility. Jasmine: There are getting to be more and more structures on the Rio Grande property. It seems to me that all the open space that we had, suddenly all we have is a playing field. It might be better to combine buildings. If there is an important need for 2 public uses down there which is the trolley barn and the recycling center rather than having 2 buildings trying to fit together on the same space--if there were any way to combine them into a single building at least it would be only one building. It might be a better solution to the whole problem. 7 PZM6.18.91 Leslie: For conceptual review at this point the first question is is this a use that you wanted to continue on that site. And if so I think between now and when the trolley submits final application we have a lot of time then to take in various recommendations that you may have and how to incorporate the 2 uses on the site. What Jim is presenting to you is some initial options to give us the case scenario for your comments. I would just like to know from you whether you think this is a use that we should continue and help along for this site. Jasmine then asked for a straw poll. Sara: people desire uproar I say yes. I think it is a real public amenity. I think are familiar with it and I think it is a real grass-roots in this town for recycling. I think we would have a big if we take it away. Richard: The question I asked myself even before I got to the memo--OK, this is a nice idea but is it just because we got it started there and is there a better place. I can't think of a better place for it. And I think it is an appropriate place given the uses on the south side of Spring st extension there because it is a light industrial area. It is close to the center of town as we are ever going to get. So I am in favor of continuing it at that site. Jasmine: I tend to agree with Sara and Richard. Roger: I will say yes it qualifies. I want to go back to what P&Z has done in the past by prioritizing what belongs on the Rio Grande SPA. It's original purpose when it was bought with 7th penney funds was transportation. I consider this a very appropriate accessory use for this type of site. Not a primary use. If we can take care of transportation first and there is room for recycling I think it is a great idea. I would like to get it to where it doesn't look like a dump yard. And with as good as you guys are keeping it, unfortunately it does have that appearance right now. I think we do need this kind of facility in the central of the community to service the business community. Mari: I agree pretty much with what Richard said and I feel like there will be detractors who will bring up all of my objections to the snow dump on that site and compare the 2 uses and the distinction in my mind is that the snow dump doesn't require the consumer to visit it. 8 PZM6.18.91 And as long as everything has to be hauled away from the snow dump after it is sorted out from the water so it might as well be hauled out to begin with. That is the way I see it. The recycling center has got to be convenient for the consumer. That is the justification for the use on that site. It would be nice if the building could have a nice facade so it wouldn't look too much like a corrugated/tin appearance. It should look good being next to the library. But I think that the architecture of the garage was clever enough that it doesn't look like a garage. I just hope that with clever use of materials and so on so that it doesn't look like a recycling center. I also feel that we should err in the direction of allowing them to expand rather than trying to squeeze it into too small a space to be able to expand in the future. I think this will be a growing movement. David: I disagree with all of you. I think there are other sites in town. I think there are more convenient sites in town and I think this in the commercial zone and the FCI zone. There are other sites. The masterplanning currently calls for the block which is now the Buckhorn/Bell Mountain Lodge. And the Kraut property to the parking garage to the city. And that is just with the masterplan. I would say it is doubtful that parking garage status right across from City Market would be a real handy site. Just like this is somewhat handy but not real handy to Clark's Market and the post office. So I think that kind of location perhaps underground, perhaps out of site. And I definitely agree with the comments about the design of this. I would encourage that some sort of design review to assure that we get some kind of architectural amenity acceptable to the community. It was purchased for transportation then transferred to open space and along that line I agree--first it is transportation and second open space. If however it were being incorporated into this site there are ways to do it. I know there is water in the ground. How much water? How far underground? My guess is that a smaller structure could be made that is depressed, could be made--perhaps one that doesn't have a roof. There are several publications in the last month on green architecture. You can have a sod covered roof so that it looks like landscaping so it is all natural elements to further decrease the use of fossil fuels. And to use solar energy--maybe not for heating but for lighting. Leslie: Would you like us to explore other options? other sites? David: I would say that is up to you all. I think they are out there. It is almost like a traffic generator. It is another destination point. I just think there is a better way to do it. 9 PZM6.18.91 Bruce: I tend to agree with David. If it boiled down to the fact that this were the only possible site for it I probably would vote in favor of it. The thought just came to me what about the sanitation district land down there. I know at one time they were talking about some housing or something. I don't know what is going on there. I think there may be some other sites. And I just hate to clutter up the Rio Grande too much. It is the same reservations I had a bout the theatre. I just hate for us to build out that land and not really have thought it out thoroughly. Sara: until the City Council receives this resolution can they not act on removing the snowmelt. Is there ongoing search from staff regarding the snowmelt? Leslie: Based upon your recommendation we reviewed the snowmelt. Carol O'Dowd has directed Engineering Dept to put together a matrix of sites and not to look at it from a quantitative perse cost. But to look at it from other measures and to try and give the Council a basis to start pursuing different sites. Jasmine: Based upon the straw vote the majority of the Commission favors allowing the recycling center to be included conceptually on the Rio Grande. I don't think there is anybody who objects to a better location. But for the purposes of tonight this is where we are. So our question now is for staff's recommendation to approve this conceptual SPA. Leslie: Condition #9 could be "The applicant and the trOlley applicant work together to develop a site plan". Roger: #2 is the orientation of the car barn toward the north to maximize available space for recycling. #3 whatever. Richard: It could be easily included in depicting both option #1 which is the largest shall be included in the final application. need not include on site parking". #1. The site plan and the trolley barn And just add "which Leslie: I would rather then just have a list to cover everyone's comments I think it should include an exploration of other sites. Bruce: The problem I have with that is once they have got conceptual SPA approval showing recycle center, their incentive for looking at other sites is gone. And then it just keeps mushrooming and the next thing you know we have final approval and that is the reason I am probably going to vote against it. I really don't want that kind of thing to happen. I would rather send it back to them now and say look for other sites and then come 10 PZM6.18.91 in and prove to us that there are no other sites. willing to vote in favor of it. I don't want to mushrooming and snowballing to point of final. Then I might be see it just keep Jasmine: I understand your concern. Sara: I agree. It gets in resolution form mumble. Jasmine: There are a lot of questions about the recycling facility that I don't think have been sufficiently thought out even with our additional language that would be appropriate for a resolution. Richard: Is the study being done by the waste management company including a survey of sites in the City of Aspen for a processing facili ty? Leslie: They are looking at between Pitkin, Eagle and Garfield counties. And they are taking into account the entire population for the counties and where best to locate the facility and what level of service. Roger: Concerning recycling I really agree with David and Bruce and if given a free reign here I would prefer not having the recycling center here. Is there a way that we can indicate that in the resolution at this point. In the resolution I would still -- like to see the WHEREAS's--the primary purpose of the purchase of the Rio Grande site was transportation. However if there is space and not interference accessory uses are perfectly tolerated--a Youth Center for example. I hardly relate that to transportation. If the resolution has to go forward the resource recycling at this point could be tolerated if there is no other place to handle it. Jasmine: I just don't think we are ready to go forward with a resolution. I don't see how we can. Leslie: I can in a WHEREAS clause say that you conceptually reviewed the recycling center and that there is a significant amount of information that you still want as far as the application before you give recycle approval of the facility but that you don't want to hold up all the other things going forward conceptually- -the trolley line, the art park theatre going before City Council. We have time before the trolley wants to submit their final application to direct Jim to go out and get more information and explore other sites. 11 PZM6.18.91 Mari: Would it be feasible to hold off on the conceptual approval of it and look at it as an amendment to the SPA? I don't remember approving of an SPA segment before. We look at SPA as a whole rather than approving part of this and part of that. So I would think that might be the right way to go about it--Ieave our options open for that and consider it as an amendment. Leslie: Which will require review by Commission and Council. Jasmine: That is a possibility but again we are getting into the same thing that Bruce brought up before which is that there are already things on this SPA that were never intended to be on it in the first place. And somewhere along the line we need to get a real SPA. And I don't think that we have it. Richard: I am concerned that the SPA will go forward excluding the possibility of recycling on the site. I don't want that to happen either. And I am ready to give it conceptual approval with the condition that the applicant look at other sites. David: Rather than eliminating it from the site permanently and rather than giving it to the site permanently perhaps it could be granted not a conditional use but a temporary use to be reviewed annually or bi-annually. And along that line it doesn't necessarily need to be a structure. I hate to say that because I like to see as many buildings as possible go wherever possible. It could be--I really mean a non-structure. It could literally be a non-structure area with some berms around it on a temporary basis until such time as a permanent structure is found. We are in the middle of a City masterplanning process right now and some of the output of that over the next 6 months to a year might have some direct impact on this. So I think making a final or giving final approval or direction to this might be against--well, there may be other solutions. I do think this is a great use. I think it is a necessary use. But I think there might be other sites. So I think it could be a temporary use with a non-structure. MOTION Richard: Concerning the conceptual SPA recycling application-#l prior to a final SPA application submittal by the trolley proponents and remove for the resource program--included in the final SPA application by the trolley proponents a site plan depicting both option #1 and Option #2 which seems realistic and the trolley barn shall be included with the final application which need not include on site parking for the trolley facility. 12 PZM6.18.91 And then the second--prior to a final SPA application from the resource recovery program they shall consider other sites in the metropolitan area and demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Commission and Council that this is the best one if it is the best one. Jasmine: What is this? Are you recommending approval? Richard: Yes. And then the other conditions wouldn't apply at this point because they are staying at the conceptual level. So there are just 2 conditions. Leslie: I think so because a lot of the other stuff like demonstration ____dry well and things like that, those things are required in a final application and are detailed in final. Jasmine: So in other recommending approval of based on his 2 conditions words what Richard is doing he is the conceptual SPA recycle application and he is eliminating the other ones. Richard: I am trying to remove it from the recycle application first condition I read applied to the trolley application but I don't want to eliminate potential for recycling and then before the resource recovery program makes a conceptual SPA application or when they make a conceptual SPA application must review all potential sites. Jasmine: What you are basically doing you are tabling their application. Richard: Yes. Roger: I don't read it as that. Richard: That is my intent. Jasmine: We are not ruling on the conceptual SPA at this point. Roger: I wish we would say that then. Roger: The problem I have with that is that you are putting a condition on the trolley under the resource recycling. Leslie: What I would like to do is take the reso and I will reflect your comments about the recycle facility in that resolution not as an approval. Bruce: At the risk of saying the obvious, the resource recovery people will come back with the Rio Grande site as being the site 13 PZM6.18.91 because it is free land. The Bell Mountain is not free land nor is any other land as they have had access to. David: That is why saying making a temporary structure that is a non structure so that at some point in the future if Prince vangar or his cousin comes to town and wants to donate a site--that is possible-- MOTION Sara: I would like to move to approve the resolution--because we are not dealing with conceptual--to approve the resolution to City Council minus the conceptual SPA of the recycling center. Bruce seconded the motion. Roger: I would like to add that somewhere the that history of what it was bought for. with 7th penney. in the WHEREAS section We know it was bought Sara opted not to include that in her motion. Everyone voted in favor of the motion except Roger and Jasmine. MOTION Mari: I move to table the conceptual SPA application until such time that we have more information regarding the feasibility of other sites for the recycling center. Roger seconded the motion with all in favor except Richard. Jasmine then adjourned the meet in . Time was 7:00pm. 14