Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19911022 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 22. 1991 Chairlady Jasmine Tygre called meeting to order at 4:30pm. Answering roll call were Jasmine compton, David Brown and Tim Mooney. were excused. Tygre, Roger Hunt, Richard Bruce Kerr and Sara Garton COMMISSIONER COMMENTS There were none. STAFF COMMENTS There were none. MINUTES OCTOBER 8. 1991 Roger made a motion to adopt minutes of October 8, 1991. Tim seconded the motion with all in favor. COMMON GROUND HOUSING ASSOCIATION REZONING Jasmine opened the public hearing. Applicant affidavit (attached presented list of posting of in record) of names, property affidavit of plus picture mailing and of posting. Leslie Lamont, planning: Made presentation as attached in record. There was discussion of appropriate density for this site. David: I have done several studies on this project trying to identify what is an appropriate density and have had meetings with some of the neighbors. Basically the outcome is that 20 to 22 units was about the appropriate density. And that any more than that might be pushing the limit of what would be compatible with the neighborhood. 20 units gives a pretty good balance between parking, open space, the AH requirements and a family oriented type of development. Randy weidum: What we are dealing with is we have our own by- laws. Essentially we comply with all the guidelines of the Employee Housing as far as the Housing Authority goes. And we are trying to establish the final arrangement for disbursal of the units. Essentially we are complying with all of the basic concepts of the guidelines and we are just going to go in for some modifications on qualification. It is a participation group so the people who have banded together and are doing all the work, which we have accumulated several thousand hours of time, that they would have priority to get the units. We have done demographics on who wants what. And what we have come up with is taking all the input and prioritizing what our needs are and what everybody agrees on. We have a work area work shop for working on skis or whatever. We have daycare type possibilities. Common dining because 75% of the group wants to share meals and that is the basic concept of the co-housing that we spend and share time together. We have a central parking area. We have the street plan where all of the units orient to the common street so all the kitchen or main entries and the kitchen area is directed toward the public space so that you have a sense of community. We have integrated play areas for kids. We have integrated gardening areas for co-participation. It is a mini community. And everybody participates in the maintenance and the upkeep of the project. The maintenance is done on a participation basis. In the common house we have a central boiler that powers the existing building. And with that same system we can power the whole complex. We have applied for some solar grants to tie into the hot water system that is in the building and if we get that we can easily do a bank system in the roof of the building. There is no commercial application for anything. outside services offered. There are no David: will there be any subletting of any of the units? Randy: It wouldn I t be any different than any other employee housing project. It would be under the review of anybody. They would have to go through the guidelines. Like if I want to sell my unit I have to go through the guidelines. The only thing we have different is that we have a priority list of the group. So if you have been with the group and there is 21 units and you are 22 when somebody sells a unit you get the first priority. other than that it is under the same guidelines as any other employee housing project. Jasmine opened the public portion of the hearing. Taylor Gamblin: I have been with this group since the inception in August of last year. The first meeting that we had I attended just out of curiosity. It was Dr. Oden, Fritz Benedict, Harry Truscott. These were the main thrusters of the project in the beginning. I was very doubtful. But I thought if these men of their stature were interested, I was interested too. It became infectious. We have met every week now without a break almost since August of 1990. We have all become friends. I have become a grandfather of a lot of children and it is neat. It is a wonderful concept. And I look forward to trying out some of my cooking on them. It has become a family. It is hard to describe. We take trips together. We do things together. We have picnics. And yet--this is something I value very much--we retain our own 2 independence. If we don't want to see each other, fine. We don't. And that is what we are going to carry through the project. ?: One thing I think would help to understand the density that we are doing--within our group right now we have 23 households. We have age ranges of a few months old, people who are not born yet up to the age of 62 years old. We have people from every single income and every category in the housing. We have 15 children under the age of 14 within that group. So in some ways the density is going to be higher if you look at it as 21 townhouses because so many of the employee housing units you have 1 or 2 people in each because they are the ones who qualify for the mortgage. But this project some families have 3 children. We also have people from all different job descriptions. We have waiters and waitresses, architects and the full range. The one thing I like about this whole thing was the fact that it is a neighborhood and it is not people that all one income category or all one occupation. Michael Kinsley: We recognize that we have a public obligation. We are using public lands here. Some of the things that make this project different is that for the first time we are seeing the residents doing their own application process which has never happened before. The nature of this project is such that--always before when we were considering employee housing we were thinking about some vague group of people out there. One of the reasons people leave Aspen and move down valley certainly is affordability. One of the reasons a lot of people have chosen to go down there is because they don I t have enough room. They want to have enough room for their families. What we have done here is to use a design developed over 20 years in Denmark and other parts of Scandinavia that accommodates that very question. That figures out a real efficient way in a small space to provide the kinds of things that one otherwise can't get in the employee projects that we normally have here. Things that you want to do in your garage but you ain't got one. A place to work on your skis, your bicycle or your car. Sufficient storage. Those kinds of things to relate to one another as a community. These are all the things that are far more attractive for us to stay here rather than move down valley where we can get 2 acres. Roberta Allan: This is my first exposure to this project and I think it is a wonderful idea and it is very well thought out and I think the concept is great. There are 2 issues though that concern me. One is that it is public land and it seems to me that the public in general not just a small group of 21 or 23 families should make the decision as to how that public land is used. My other concern and it has been a concern for some time is the amount of density and traffic that goes down Mill st and over that little bridge and funnel into that small area. I think that is something 3 that we really need to take a much more careful look at before we start piling more density into that small part of town. stephen Shearer: We have been together over a year now and the connection--the blending together of us has been really a rich thing. We have got events other than having our meetings on Wednesday night at the community center. We have gone over to the Mt Everet Lodge, the Arches. We have gone on picnics. We went to the Hot springs. And the actual human tendency to bond, to mix and to share is a very rich place that goes into the soul. And this is exactly what is happening. In my visiting over almost 9 years with people who have lived in other community projects, this isn't felt. You don't feel the connection that we do. The actual footprint here of the whole arrangement of moving space enhances what we already feel and the communi ty of people devoted to this endeavor. And that hasn't even happened yet. All we have done formally is meet on Wednesday meetings and the occasional time that we do in the outdoors. Kinsley: We have made a real strong effort to involve the neighbors in the design. with regard to density impact my speculation is we will reduce the impact in terms of traffic. Marsha Goshorn: The way that we have the driveway, we are redoing the entire entry so there is a possibility the whole area will become safer. That corner right now is treacherous. When Dr. Oden's driveway is relocated also we are going to have the opportunity to make that whole area safer. There being no further public comment Jasmine closed the public portion of the hearing. David: I think that regarding Roger's comments about wanting more density I think it is possible. But I think it is also possible that some of the open space around the fringes of this and the common house itself could be held as future housing units and maybe that would alleviate your concern. There is a certain limit to the current demand for participation in this. 35 parking spaces is required as a maximum. They are proposing to provide 33. As a practical matter with studies on the Hunter Longhouse property there is probably an oversupply of parking spaces actually needed and used by Hunter Longhouse except for the holiday weeks. I think the 33 comes really close to the 35 as apparently adequate. And except for Christmas and New Years it will probably be more than enough. I agree with Roger it needs a little more attention to the waste handling and deliveries for the kitchen. You might also consider recycling opportunities within that when you come back with this. 4 One of the real needs of this community is to re-establish a sense of community in a psychological sense. There is really an attempt by this group to do that. And especially by providing a mixed occupancy of families and single people and a real mix of household types. The participation in the planning of this really goes a long way to creating a sense of community. It being closer to town it will give opportunities for pedestrian and bicycle commutes more than any project that might be further away. You might even look into organized van pool to help further reduce traffic on the road. You might also look into doing a traffic count. Jasmine: I would just reinforce what you have said about the participation of the people who will be living in the project. I think it is definitely the way to go. I agree with the city Council's idea of having a tenant's management association. I think that people who are involved in making the decisions about the way the way they want to live are going to take better care of and have a better project. And to the extent that any affordable housing project is attractive, well maintained, clean and a good neighbor to the other neighbors I think it makes it better for all the other affordable housing projects to avoid the "I don't want an affordable housing project next to me" mentality that we have seen in this town. And so I feel very strongly that we want to see this project be very, very successful. We would like to see it be a model for other kinds of projects of this type in our community. Roger: I basically agree with all those comments. However in this case not strictly applicable to rezoning. Jasmine: The rezoning is not site specific. MOTION Roger: I move to recommend rezoning of what is commonly known as the community center parcel at 0100 Lone pine Road amending the official zoning map from "P" Public, to "AH" Affordable Housing with conditions 1 through 5 being the same as on Planning Office memo dated October 22, 1991. (attached in record) David seconded the motion with all in favor. Names of people in attendance for this hearing but who did not comment: Marlis Aeberli, Tom Buesch, Molica Shearen, Sandmine Dueren and Richard Compton. 5 RIO GRANDE RIVER CHANNEL STREAM MARGIN REVIEW Leslie Lamont, Planning: Made presentation as attached in record. Tim: I am interested in the commercial aspects of the river walk. I am very concerned about that. I am a kayaker and I really am excited about this. But I am really not interested in seeing it turn out to be another fast food stand like down at the ball field with the paper and garbage problem. I would like to see an open picnic area and grassy knolls and keep it as grassy and open as possible. I am not interested in any commercial aspects of it. The scenario in my mind is that people will come and boat here and basically when you boat you will do a shuttle of some kind and we are creating a place to start. Are we creating a place to finish? Are we creating congestion in places that we are not prepared for? There is parking here. People can park in the garage. I don't want this to impact other parks or other drop off areas or other pick up areas because now we are creating a target here that people are going to use. What about the spillover in other areas of the river? Are we prepared to give people other obvious places to take out and to shuttle from and to picnic from? I think people from out of town will come to boat this. And I think advanced boaters will then take on other sections of the river. Jasmine: One of the things that concerns me is the river walk cafes. At the very, very beginning of the Rio Grande planning there was mention of river walk cafes and everyone said "NO! We do not want to turn this into San Antonio". And yet every time we turn around these river walk cafes show up. Can't we just keep them off? It is really getting irritating. Nobody wants them and they keep showing up. There is no reason for them to keep showing up. In all the discussions the Commission has had before the idea is to keep this as natural a river front as possible. If people want to eat by the side of the river which is certainly a very nice thing it is picnics. We don't want to turn it into any possibility of a commercial enterprise. We don't want any more paving or lawn furniture of any kind of permanent nature. Tim: Even the kiosk thing and the amphitheater stuff, I think really should come later on. I think what we ought to concentrate on how we can expand this. This is really popular. And is there the potential then to put in 2 or 3 or 4 more drop pools. Or can we take it from just an intermediate area in the middle to a beginner area at one end and an expert area at the other end and do we have the potential of having almost like a ruggerfest kind of thing. Could we have kayak competitions here? And I think that centering on those kinds of philosophies--getting this river amenity buffed out and really making it traumatic and really 6 putting our money where our mouth is. If we are going to do this then let's get into it and the heck with all the commercial stuff. I want people to eat in the center core of town. I don't want people to buy t-shirts with a kayak on them on the river. I want them to do that in the commercial core of town. Jasmine: The plans for the Rio Grande have become very grandiose. And we have a perfectly wonderful opportunity to have something here which is what everybody would like which is not grandiose but really very natural and nice and wonderful. And I don't see any reason to start throwing in these monkey wrenches. It is like telling kids not to put beans in their ears. We tell you not to put cafes in there and that is what you are doing. Roger: I am not sure how Patsy Newberry Park is involved in the downvalley rail. Maybe never. But it seems to me the Roaring Fork Railroad ran a leg to Patsy Newberry Park. I don't know that that would be interfering with that park. It would certainly be in addition to what is there. We should watch out about preventing access to that leg along the river for a future rail plan. What is the river of the fountain? at no cost except fall from the beginning of the area to the area You can make some beautiful fountains literally for the pipe line by using the river fall. David: As a former kayaker I am not surprised steamboat's park is the popular park in town having this type of feature. And in general in other parks like Confluence Park in Denver that were masterplanned to have restaurants overlooking recreational amenities exactly like this I don't think they are mutually exclusive in character. Just as a snack bar overlooking the ice skating rink next to the Ritz is mutually exclusive in character. That is not to say I am in favor of river walk cafes at this particular location. But conceptually I am not adverse to it either because I don't see this as being absolutely pristine nature. This is in town. I think it would be great to have this. I think your concept in previous commissions concepts in keeping this as more of a natural experience and relief to the rest of the urban community makes a lot of sense. But I am thinking of events I have been to at the Art Museum that were just fantastic. I think the amphitheater could be a really fantastic. I mean the amphitheater and the theatrical elements could be great. I am really concerned that this will overload the area from a parking standpoint. Maybe there will be a few people that will take their car down to the Wink Jaffe Park and then ride a bike up. But I think 99% of the people, especially the ones from out of town, will be inclined to have a couple of shuttle vehicles. Most river input/egress sites I have seen just get overrun and it is almost like Grand Central station. So I think it is going to be a serious impact on the neighborhood. 7 Some of these other things like the river walk and the theatre and whatnot we really need to look at those in context with the neighborhood. I know you are looking for a temporary permit here--only looking to do the work in the riverbed. I think that is basically fine. But I also agree with Roger. I think even the temporary cut should have a natural character to it. I have worked on things similar to this. I have seen dozer drivers that can't read a plan and don't have any idea how to even do half decent sculpting to a cut. I would put dollars to doughnuts that is what you are going to get here. So I think some sort of plans in consideration and provisions to have even the temporary cut be somewhat naturalistically landscaped. A project within a quarter mile of this that I worked on in the past had similar conditions and we have met them and it wasn't an onerous thing to do including placement of rocks in the river. Even if these were to be picnic areas I think it is worthwhile to address where the picnic tables are going to be, how the trash is going to be handled. This is important. I think these plans are very difficult to understand without seeing them in context with the neighborhood. I assume you are having a good time with the corp of Engineers. Basically I like the concept. I think it will be a great amenity to the community and the tourism base of the town. But I am also concerned with the impacts. I think the parking has to be analyzed from looking way upstream and way downstream. It might also be good to have City Legal Counsel review the potential liability impacts if any of injuries occurring as a throwoff from this. Some of my college buddies aren I t around anymore and that is how it happened. Roger: It would be nice to have the difference in elevations in the pools. George Robinson, Parks: The way I understand we are talking a foot maybe 2 feet. Leslie: I have 2 proposed conditions of approval. Boater put-in and take-out including parking and dropoff shall be addressed for the course. This will occur prior to and during the masterplan effort. Tim: I think you should say how it is going to impact other areas of the river in the County. David: Just say up and down the stream and leave it vague and see how you all respond. 8 Patrick Duffield, Parks: Even now during high water you have about 3 weeks of really high water when people boat through town. And there aren't that many people who do it. It is only one time of the year. You are not going to go from these pools down to Slaughter House Bridge most of the year. You are going to have those three weeks. Tim: As long as you are satisfied that you are not creating a problem down the line by having something that wasn't there last year and all of a sudden there are a lot more boaters that are targeting on this area. I think it should be looked at. The realm of this is big all the way down the river and the parking areas and shuttles and dropoffs now are--people are going to figure them out. So we had better anticipate. Leslie: Also the City Attorney shall review liability impacts of the whitewater. David: I think a third condition would be some sort of revocable easement for vehicular access. The City reserves the right to close the input or limit vehicular access to the input. Tim: I think you could say the rule for boaters using this is "Parking is in the garage and you carry your boat down". Leslie: Those are things we would address in the masterplan. Roger: What I recommend at this point is giving them approval to work on this water course more or less as you have written here but also in the case as it is anticipated that further stream margin review will be required as this project continues. Why don't we just go ahead and approve this up to this point but with the additional conditions that we have but indicate that it is our anticipation that further stream margin review is going to be required as this project progresses. Tim: In this boat take-out this is the bridge that goes over to the Art Museum. I think that there should be some kind of emergency access here. Duffield: There is a bike path now. You can drive right to that bridge--to the water on both sides. MOTION Roger: I move to approve Stream Margin Review for the re- construction and channelization for the whitewater course and reshaping the island, planting new vegetation and the re-grading of the south bank with the understanding that this is a continuing process and there will be further Stream Margin Reviews required. 9 That is conditioned on conditions #1 and #2 being the same as on Planning Office memo dated October 22, 1991 (attached in record) and with the addition of condition #3 concerning boater put-ins and take-outs and condition #4 impacts up and down the river including parking and condition #5 the City Attorney reviewing potential liabilities. Tim seconded the motion with all in favor. Jasmine adjourned the meeting. Time was 7:10pm. Deputy Clerk 10