Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19910903 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING , ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3. 1991 vice Chairlady Jasmine Tygre called meeting to order at 4:30pm. Answering roll call were Sara Garton. Richard Compton, Bruce Kerr and Jasmine Tygre. Roger Hunt and David Brown were excused. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS There were none. STAFF COMMENTS Kim: I would like to make an addition to the end of the agenda. The Krebs conditional use application had to be tabled because of the improper notification discovered at the hearing meeting. MOTION Bruce: I move to accept the revised agenda to include the Krebs conditional use review for an accessory dwelling unit. Richard seconded the motion with all in favor. MINUTES AUGUST 6 AND 20. 1991 After corrections: Richard: I move to approve the minutes of August 6, 1991. Bruce seconded the motion with all in favor. Bruce made a motion to approve minutes of August 20, 1991. Sara seconded the motion with all in favor. ROARING FORK STREAM MARGIN REVIEW Leslie made presentation as attached in record. There was discussion of the problem of parking in regard to replacement of the bridge. Ken Sterling: I live over on the east side of the river there and I see nothing wrong with the bridge as it is today except that it needs new planking. Now if you have so much money that you want to replace a bridge that is perfectly all right. I just see no sense in that. Terry Hubbert Schiff: I want to second what Ken Sterling just said. Patrick DUffield, Parks Dept: For the record, the reason we are doing this is for public safety. The footings on the western end have been eroded. PZM9.3.91 Richard: I think it is great finally getting the underpass under the Mill street Bridge. On building the second bridge downstream of the Mill street Bridge and going back to the San Dept property something Jon Busch brought when we were doing the pedestrian plan was investigate acquiring easements for that private property and staying on the north bank there. I don't know if that has been pursued or is possible. Duffield: We have problems with that. The Engineer had a look at that and found it to be very steep. We would end up spending a lot of money re-enforcing that whole wall there. Richard: Then on the road between Mill st Bridge and the bridge by the Art Museum, why didn't you go more along the river bank? Duffield: There is a pedestrian path down through there. Richard: I use that a lot and it has a tendency of conflict between bicycles and people in the yard at the Art Museum and going through the parking lot. I think separating the bike path from the Art Museum yard and parking lot would be advantageous. Duffield: Also the Art Museum is using that area for some art exhibits. You would be cutting up their property with a bike trail. And it brings people into the Art Museum area. They would prefer no alignment at all. And also with that 5ft pedestrian path you are bringing people down to that area. Leslie: Ultimately the goal is to go from Slaughter House Bridge all the way up to North Star Preserve along the river without having to get off the path to cross Mill Street. Since this is San Dist property and easy for us to get an easement and we have the money right now for some bridges and some trail work now to begin in the Fall. The idea is to pull back to the river. Once this is completed you would be able to go from Slaughter House Bridge to Herron Park on a bike and pedestrian path. Fritz Benedict: Gary Lacy is probably the best designer of trails in the country. He not only did the Boulder ones but last year he did this incredible trail system in Steamboat. It is 5 miles long and cost about $5 million dollars. They did the double trails. The idea is that the concrete trail is for anybody. But if you are afraid to walk on it because of bikers you can walk on the dirt trail which also has access for fishing. It also is the place where you have the set tracks in the winter. They plan to plow the snow off the concrete trails for bikes and walkers which is better than walking bikes in the snow. This is more comfortable and will be used more. It is really the state-of-the-art. 2 PZM9.3.91 Now coming up along the river there you can find places where they won't be able to do that. It is just too narrow but where you can do it it is ideal because a lot of people are afraid to walk where the bikers are allowed. They are going to use something called crusher? It is fine dirt with clay in it that packs down where the-dirt track is and stays quite smooth. It has been done on the eastern slope a lot. It is really the state-of-the-art way to go where you can do it. Bruce: I have a question about the Hopkins bridge. Is it staff's position that the existing bridge is unsafe and therefore must be replaced. Is it cheaper to replace it with a new bridge rather than to fix the existing bridge? Duffield: We are going to use pieces of the existing bridge in the North starr Preserve for the Nordic Council to get across some of the Roaring Fork River in that area. It is much easier the way the bridge is now to simply lift it out and put in another shorter bridge that does a lot more things than the one that is existing now. Not only is it safer and will be stronger and a more longer- lasting bridge but as we develop the river trail it allows access onto the bridge with much more ease than what is there now. Bruce: So the existing bridge is not going to the landfill. Duffield: No. It is going to the Nordic Council. Leslie: In case of flood the design of these 2 new bridges allow the bridge to break away on one end and let the debris flow through and not back up and ruin the bridge. Richard: The west side of the Mill Street Bridge there is a real erosion problem because the drain at the top of the hill where Lone pine Road meets Red Mountain Road the water always comes running down and on both sides of the street and then flows down a little gully into that bank there. Unless that is fixed the trail will be constantly washed away or have gravel and dirt flowing across it. I think that needs to be addressed. Duffield: We are planning on putting that little spur that comes up Lone pine all the way to the top. As we do that we will put in the proper drainage. Richard: Then off that side of the road is traditionally overflow parking for the Art Museum. People are always pulling off into that gravel area so that needs to be dealt with in some fashion. 3 PZM9.3.91 MOTION Richard: I move to approve this application by the City of Aspen for pedestrian bike path and new bridge on Roaring Fork River and replacing the existing Hopkins street pedestrian bridge with the conditions as laid out in the memo dated september 3, 1991 and with an additional condition that the Planning Staff for the City look at including some replacement parking places on the south side of the west end of Hopkins Street Bridge. Bruce seconded the motion. - Sara: The reason I don't like this motion is I agree with Patrick and the Staff--I hate to see parking all along the trail in the greenway. Supposedly there are enough spaces according to code on people's property to accommodate the cars for the number of units on that block. So the other cars that are parking there are probably storage for guests. So I don't like that motion. Bruce: The reason I seconded is that the language as I understood it was general enough that they are going to try to save some parking spaces on the south side of the trail if they can. Duffield: There is a bit of aesthetics in those too. If you put cars on the right or south side of that so that if you come up to the bike path--there is the nice gentle river bank as a pocket park that would be aesthetically enhancing from Hopkins st rather than putting cars in there. Bruce: That is true. Richard: It is my uneducated opinion that if and when the Valley High is replaced a lot of the parking problems will disappear. I think a lot of those cars are from the Valley High as it is a very crowded complex and a lot of them have no parking. Everyone voted in favor of the motion except Sara. Sara: I am not against the trail. ASPEN MOUNTAIN PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ICE RINK MAP AMENDED Diane: The Planning Office along with the applicant requests that this item be tabled to September 17, 1991. MOTION Sara so moved. Bruce seconded the motion with all in favor. 4 PZM9.3.91 100 PARK AVENUE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. SUBDIVISION AND GMOS EXEMPTION FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING Kim Johnson of the Planning Dept made presentation as attached. Sunny Vann, representative for applicant: This is one of the first applications to come under Ord. #1. Generally speaking the conditions are acceptable to the applicant. The only variance requested is the open space. The retention of this existing historical structure has driven the site design of this project. The HPC has asked that we treat this as a separate structure and try to restore it to it's original form and size adjacent to the street. In doing that we created open space which meets the spirit of open space but not the technical definition in terms of visibility from the street. We have the same problem in terms of the setbacks around the edge of the property. If we meet the setback requirements for Midland Ave we comply with zoning but it doesn't meet the minimum requirement for depth for the calculation of open space. - The architects depicted the space on the lower level of this project as an exercise room. It does not meet the definition of the code for a bedroom nor could it be converted to a bedroom under the density requirements of the RMF zone district. These are 2- bedroom units. The space in question could be used, depending on the individual owner, for anything not associated with a bedroom. It could be a den, family room, play room, exercise room, library, wine storage--anything they want to do. I don't have a problem with putting people on notice that this cannot be used for a bedroom. I do have sort of a generic problem with this type of condition. It presupposes that that someone is somehow going to violate the spirit of the zoning regulations. Gibson, architect, using plans and drawings explained the project to the P&Z members. Sara: Explained a possible conflict of interest. It was decided by the applicant and Board members there was no objection to her staying for this hearing. Sara: First of all the density actually will be more people because you are replacing 5 existing units with 5 free market. But there are more bedrooms. But I must say the existing building there are not very desireable. Are you taking down the shed? Sunny: We are going to pick up the cottage, take off a recent addition and move it and set it down on a new foundation and 5 PZM9.3.91 completely renovate it up to code. Sara: will the ditch remain here. Sunny: We have no plans for improvement of the public ROW other than this access drive and we would like to do some clean up grading and drainage--all improvements in the public ROW have to be approved by the Engineering Dept. The last time I was on site was in the winter and I didn't see the ditch. But if there is a ditch there and it is part of a continuing system, we cannot unilaterally remove it. We would have to culvert it underneath our driveway. We cannot remove the Cottonwoods in the public ROW. They don't belong to us. Sara: I would want to do a condition that recommends that the lower level studio/exercise room could not be used as a bedroom. Jasmine: I think every member of this Commission is very concerned about the sublevel rooms which are not called bedrooms. The realities of life in this town are such that there is very little question in everybody's mind that various people are using these as bedrooms because you can't afford to spend this kind of money in this neighborhood for this kind of house and not have it be a 2-bedroom house. And you the applicant cannot enforce that because you are going to sell these. They are then going to be individual owners who are going to use this as a bedroom. You can't tell me this is not going to happen. The reason it is a problem is because the density on this parcel and the amount of parking allowed on this parcel is keyed specifically to the code requirement for the number of bedrooms. And the fact that you don't call it a bedroom doesn't really mean that you are not going to have the kind of density that might be totally unacceptable on the site if you figure it the way people are really going to be using these units. Richard: I agree with you, Jasmine. If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck--it is probably going to act like one. Staff, you have given the size of the parcel--what is the square footage of land required for a 3-bedroom unit? Sunny: 3,lOO. Richard: So that is an extra 1,000. Sunny: It won't support a 3-bedroom unit. Kim: It looks like it would support 1 3-bedroom unit and 3 2- bedroom units. 14,000sqft of lot area and the total right now of 6 PZM9.3.91 lot area requirement is 13,000. Richard: I would have no problem if it were approved within the code as the 4 3-bedrooms if somebody chose to use one of the bedrooms as a den or anything else. But it could end up as an enforcement problem if we end up with 53-bedroom units or 3 2- bedrooms or whatever. But I think to be realistic we need to approach whatever could be a bedroom and call it a bedroom. Sunny: That is not how our code works. We have a definition of a bedroom imposed by the Building Dept at the time you submit your plans. If someone converts something or adds FAR to their house or encroaches into a setback, those are enforcement issues for which there is a remedy. We are not at the point where we dictate the mix of units because we are concerned about if someone might do something else. We are talking about building 52-bedroom units. If we want to build 52-bedroom units with a library and the library does not meet the definition of a bedroom under the code, then we should be able to do that. If someone comes along and converts that to something else then the City has a--if it becomes a parking problem in the area, if somebody complains, then the City has a recourse to go back and say "you can't have a bedroom here and you can't have the parking associated with it". You make them tear it out. Kim: The site plan indicates that the exercise spa area has direct access through a mud room which looks like a matter of a different floor covering material to a bathroom closet and egress. And I think that that is what Bill Drueding would look at and say "Does it look like a bedroom and act like a bedroom". He has made people remove closets or move baths or change access to baths from different rooms and I don't know what he would say about egress but that is just one thing to consider. Maybe altering that configuration downstairs to conform to what he could potentially remove from the building permit. Sunny: We have to comply at the time of building permit to whatever definition he applies at the time or we will not get a building permit. Jasmine then asked for public comment. Terry Hubbert Schiff: I have a project on Midland Avenue and am also here for 2 of my neighbors. I think it is a very good idea to do what they are doing. It is going to be a very big impact on the area from what we have there. But I don't care for the idea- -it is a very congested corner coming around here. I am concerned about this being an accident area here with this coming in here. I am also concerned for the fact of Cottonwoods. There are 7 PZM9.3.91 Cottonwoods that do not shed. The other is the open space area. There is a project on the same street which designated open area, open space and it is very important to us there because on the million each one a 3 million dollar project. Across the street is a million dollar neighbor and we are really trying to project this area with plans of single family homes. I am not opposed to this because it is an improvement to what was there. The problem that I am having with it is that you are having a problem with setbacks and why not make these areas you are all concerned with as garages. Is there a real difficult problem? You have to excavate to do that. I know you have the parking but you don't have the setback area. So in order to get the setback areas and the open space that you need, you could really create a situation here where that extra room that you all are concerned about, and you are all right in being concerned about, being an extra bedroom. Why not make it a garage? Dave Gibson: There is a 2-car garage under each unit. Terry: I understand that. But I am very concerned with that space area too. An exercise room would have to have 2 more feet if it really is an exercise room. So why not decrease the space in it and make it a really crawl space or something like that. "_....- And coming around this corner is a really bad corner. I would like to see the speed limits definitely reduced. We have a 15 MPH speed limits that are not reduced. They come through there 40 MPH. You are creating more people here and speed limits are a problem. You are bringing employee housing closer to an area that I think, from what is there, I personally think it is a plus. Ken Sterling: I live just to the north of that project and it is my understanding that the setback on my property line is only 5ft. Kim: If it is in the same zone district. It would be. We haven't exactly nailed down what zone district this property is. Sterling: I find this kind of ridiculous--this drop-off thing. I know you are meaning well but this is so narrow in here. There is no way that you can swing in there and get away from and give room for cars going through here particularly with the buses going through there. So I think you might as well forget that. The other thing I am concerned about is where are all of these cars going to park that you talk about? Are they going to park one behind the other? Sunny: Each is a 2-bedroom unit which requires one parking space per bedroom and each unit has a 2-car garage on it's ground level 8 PZM9.3.91 inside the building underneath each one of these units. there are 2 spaces provided below grade on the surface affordable housing units. And then of the 2 sterling: I live here. The parking here is unbelievable. And these people may have 2 parking spaces underneath but you know what happens. They have an extra car or they have a boat or they have a trailer and a girlfriend and they are all out there. And we can hardly get by this corner now because everyone has some piece of junk sticking out here. The people across the street here they do not have enough parking. It is terrible! I think that the project should be cut down. I really do. I am against this project. Kim: Well, this project does address the parking needs for own generation and that is all any project is asked to do. can't solve the neighborhood parking problems. Terri: I think the project could work if you do more density work with it and do something with those exercise rooms. it's We There was no more public comment and Jasmine closed the pUblic portion of the hearing. ".-...- Bruce: As much as I would like to see us be able to deal with the problem of exercise room and the problem of neighborhood parking, I don't think that is within our purview. I think Sunny's analysis of the code and the enforcement by the Building and Zoning Officer is exactly right. We can put whatever language we want to in here but all it does is kind of encumber the property and is still a matter of enforcement of the language that is in there or is not in there. So in general terms I am not so sure that I am ready to buy into the 2-step process on this. I think there are enough of these concerns that we ought to go through conceptual and at least work on it now and send it on to council and let them take a look at it. Sara: One comment from my neighbors--this different zoning line is a problem there I know. I don't know what we do other than all of you that purchased homes there realized that there was multi- family housing on the other side of you. I agree with Sunny. If this comprehensive plan suggests __?__ zoning in some areas they are not going to tear down these proj ects and we can't put a moratorium on people's right to build on a lot they have purchased at this point. The zoning isn't going to change in a couple of months. So there is no way to say "stop a project". However I would like that the Planning Office meet with us and the Police Dept for a work session on parking on residential streets. Whether we go to sticker parking or assigned. But this is really 9 PZM9.3.91 the biggest headache always-is the traffic in this area. I don't think it is impossible to resolve this. We are getting more and more storage. We are getting RVs where they are staying at someone else's house 5 blocks away. It is getting out of hand. Sunny: Something we didn't mention and I think it might help. Mr. Sterling has a very good point. This right now is just dirt and there are parked boats and all kinds of things. We propose to landscape this as part of this project. We can landscape--this is the ROWand we can come in and request permission from the City to landscape this and it is definitely to our advantage for our project to reduce noise and increase landscaping along here. We did not submit a detailed landscaping plan but we propose to provide additional landscape. These are really attached townhouses. Each one being an individual 3 story unit and a 2-car garage underneath. There is also sufficient space for 2 additional cars which provides additional overflow parking for parties etc. So I would argue that there is actually more parking provided for this solution than currently exists in the tiny lot that takes 3 or 4 cars here now. Everyone else has to double up in all of these little one bedroom units that live here are parking on the street. I believe that this will improve as far as this project is concerned. Sara: I would recommend with Mr. Sterling that this drop-off--I am afraid cars are going to stay there. It is a great idea but it is not going to work. MOTION Bruce: I would move that we, subject to all the conditions in the Planning Office memo dated September 3, 1991, approve finally subdivision and recommendation for GMQS exemption for affordable housing and also give conceptual approval to the PUD development subject to the conditions as listed as stated in the Planning Office memo dated September 3, 1991. (attached in record) Sara seconded the motion. Sara: We would be doing Roger a disservice by not asking about the trash utility area. Sunny: It is going to be in the parking area to the rear of the project. We will have to come up with a location acceptable to the Engineering and Planning Office prior to going to city Council. It will also have to be acceptable for BFI pickup. Bruce: I think there are several little things like that that we need to work out. I think the entrance that one of the neighbors 10 --- PZM9.3.91 pointed out may be a problem and needs to be looked at again. The drop off thing mayor may not work. I think there are several things that are going to go back to staff and come back. After discussion regarding 2 or 4 step process-- Bruce: I withdraw my motion. Sara: I withdraw my second. MOTION Bruce: I make a motion to continue this hearing and table this whole application to date certain of our first regular meeting in October. Sara seconded the motion. Jasmine: I would comment that I am going to vote against this approval whether it comes through now or later. I do not find the density acceptable. On a conceptual level I am going to vote against this. The problem with the density is that I believe that for this site that you have much greater density than the square footage of the site would allow. And again I know that the total amount of square footage living area will not support 53-bedroom units on the site and there is no guarantee that there are not -- going to be 53-bedroom units on the site. There is no mechanism to prevent 53-bedroom units from being on this site and I think we are really being hypocritical in going against the code by pretending something that we know is not going to exist. I just can't support it because there are no conditions that could possibly be enforced that would bring this into compliance with the code. For all the years that I have been on this Commission we have had so many conditions that have turned out to be unenforceable. We got things that we did not want. Here is a situation where the red flag goes off for everybody right away. There is no way to enforce it and then to go ahead and approve it and assume that you can then enforce it and then conform to the code is, to me, absolutely ridiculous. Sunny: For the record it is in compliance with the code. Jasmine: It is not in compliance with the code. Bruce and Sara voted in favor of the motion. Jasmine and Richard voted against. Richard: My position is similar to Jasmine's. There are open questions about the final use of the space in the buildings that- 11 PZM9.3.91 -it is an already dense neighborhood and the proposal is, as presented, within code but I think that it's actual use could go well beyond what is approvable or that the neighborhood can withstand. Sunny: What benefit is gained by denying tabling for us to come back and try and address your concerns? Jasmine: Because there is no addressing of this concern. There is no enforcing this concern. There is no way you are going to change my mind about this particular issue which, to me, is a threshold issue. There is no enforcement procedure available. Sunny: Could you at least allow us to come back and present this to a full P&Z and try and address some of the concerns of yours which are not just Jasmine's. After further discussion-- Richard: My personal inclination is to let them go forward to Council with no approval. However I am reluctant to deny Roger and David a voice in this matter. '.....,- Dianne, Planning: It is staff's recommendation that you would table and give them the courtesy of trying to work this out. Bruce: I think we are doing them a disservice to leave them hanging in no man's land. I think some of us perhaps have forgotten the film we watched a couple of weeks ago about our roll here and how our obligation #1 is one of fairness. I don't think we are being fair to this applicant by just leaving him hanging. MOTION Richard: I move to reconsider the previous motion. Sara seconded the motion with all in favor except Jasmine. MOTION Bruce: I move to continue this hearing to date certain of October 8, 1991. Richard seconded the motion with all in favor except Jasmine. KREBS CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT Jasmine opened the public hearing. Kim made presentation as attached in record. Jasmine asked if the applicant wanted to make a statement. The applicant chose not to make a statement. Jasmine asked for comment from members of the public. There was no comment from the public and she closed the public portion of the 12 PZM9.3.91 hearing. Alderfer, in answer to Bruce's inquiry: There is an alley there. I went up and talked to Jim Gibbard of the Engineering Dept. He said that because I was thinking it would be better to put the driveway to open up the alley access so you could come in through the alley--he said that there are several such non-useable kind of alleys in the City and we would have to go through a lot to do that. It would be a difficult process to do that to make that alley. Kim: Bruce: itself? Alderfer: It is a platted alley but it has not been opened. But you have plenty of space to run the drive on the lot Correct. The frontage on the lot is 90ft. MOTION Richard: I move to approve conditional use for the construction of the studio accessory dwelling unit at 916 West Smuggler including the conditions as listed in the Planning Office memo dated September 3, 1991. (attached in record) Bruce seconded the motion with all in favor. Jasmine adjourned the meeting. Time was 6:55pm. 13