Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19920121 AfCI f' PZM1. 21. 92 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 21. 1992 Chairlady Jasmine Tygre called meeting to order at 4:30pm. Answering roll call were David Roger Hunt and Jasmine Tygre. arrived shortly after roll call. Brown, Sara Garton, Bruce Kerr, Tim Mooney and Richard Compton COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Bruce called attention to the fact that soffet was falling down outside of the Library. It looked like dry wall that had never been finished out and the soffet on the exterior is coming down. It looks pretty bad on a brand new Library builindg. Roger: It is my understanding that the victoria Square--that the alley reverted to the development and no longer is a public alley. I have a feeling that the Streets Dept are still clearing that alley and with our budget crunch if that is a private road, at the very least we should charge them for the snow clearing or stop doing it. , ARMORY HALL CENTENNIAL CELEBRATION It should be noted here that at this point Roxanne Eflin, head of Historic Preservation Dept. arrived in a vintage costume in acknowledgement of today's 100 year celebration of Aspen city Hall. She looked absolutely grand! STAFF COMMENTS Diane: Presented information on red brick school. Also we are scheduled for a work session Tuesday January 28 at ACES in their conference room from 4:30 to 7:30. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no comment. MINUTES DECEMBER 17, 1991 After insertion of names of public who made comments: MOTION ",l>i;-~"~ Roger made a motion to adopt minutes of December 17, 1991. Sara seconded the motion with all in favor. ,,-. r " PZMl. 21. 92 -,-, 700 WEST FRANCIS LANDMARK DESIGNATION Jasmine opened the public hearing. Roxanne made presentation as attached in record. Roxanne made reference to certificate of mailing but I don't have it. After discussion Jasmine opened the hearing for public comment. There was none. MOTION Bruce: I make a motion that we recommend landmark designation for 700 West Francis street to City Council finding that all of the designation standards have been met with exception of standard D and also the P&Z recommends approval of the applicant's requeist for the $2,000.00 designation grant from the city of Aspen. Tim seconded the motion with all in favor except Sara. UTE PARK SUBDIVISION FINAL PUD. 8040 GREENLINE REZONING AND TEXT AMENDMENT REZONING Jasmine opened the public hearing. Kim made presentation as attached in record. Tom Stevens, representative for applicant: Made presentation regarding background and current plans for this project. stevens presented 2 letters--one from Fritz Benedict, owner of the Benedict Office Building across from the proposed development and one from Mark Overstreet, General Manager of the Aspen Club. Both state their support of this project. (attached in record) Avalanche slide area dangers, driveway turn-arounds, deed restricted units, parking, ROWs, trail system were discussed. Jasmine then asked for public comment. Craig Ward, Nordic Council: I was asked by the Planning Office to come regarding the trail issue. Using map Craig explained where the preferred trail course would be. ""- 2 " ~ PZM1.21.92 There were no other public comments and Jasmine closed the public portion of the hearing. After further discussion: MOTION Bruce: I make a motion that we rezone the ute Park Subdivision to AH based upon the finding that the critia as set forth in section 7-1102 of the code have been met and also by virtue of the fact that this produces affordable housing that we do not presently have in existance. David seconded the motion. Richard: One comment I would make is that the neighborhood as I see it is the National Forest and all the undeveloped land to the south and east. I find it ironic that we have been bitching and moaning and fighting the Hoag and Newfundland development for years as being totally unappropriate and this is in a very similar space and we are talking about this kind of density. So in my mind it doesn't meet that requirement regardless of it's good intentions. Sara: I am still confused that we are considering Rezoning before we consider Subdivision and Greenline. Jasmine: We are just saying that this particular site fulfills the requirements of the criteria for rezoning. It does not necessarily approve a specific development proposal which would be handled in other aspects of the application. Sara: I think it is the cart before the horse. about the affordable housing until I think subdivision project--the whole PUD. I can't even think about the whole Richard: until it is rezoned, we can't look at this proposal. Jasmine: Richard does not feel that any kind of density of this type that would be allowed under and AH zone would be appropriate in this particular location. And if you feel that way then you should vote that you don't think that this is an appropriate site for the additional density that is implicit in an AH zone. Bruce: I was in a similar arguement on the Kraut development. I was against rezoning because we didn't have a development plan. In that case we are the owner iof the property and we are the ones developing. I thought it was improper to rezone at that point. We at least know what this applicant is proposing to do in this case. Whether we approve it or not remains to be seen. That is the distinction I make between the two. 3 ~,,' PZMl. 21. 92 Sara: That does clarify it for me. I should make a comment to the applicant because it is onerous to you. I feel it is negligent that this thing was ever plotted for development. I think that it gets to a point with what is happening that if we keep development along this mountain something is going to give. And I am sorry that you are the one that is going to receive the burden of how I feel about this but I think it is a problem of the city maps that this never should have been allowed for development and I am sorry that I wasn't here for conceptual so that you knew my feelings then. I feel strongly about that and I feel we have a great responsibility to the community. Roger: When we looked at this way back when the idea was that the development was going to taper off out ute Avenue. And this is precisely my problem. The problem is we have got ute Avenue now more or less to the City/County line. And that gives the rest of that property out ute Ave access to the City on a road that is not- -it is going to be a 40ft ROW or a 40ft roadway but possibly a substandard ROW for a local collector. We are getting a burden on ute Ave which is far in excess of what we planned to ever happen out here. The reason it was zoned RR was , that OK someone could put a house on it and you can locate a house on that property so the avalanches can go both sides--g house. But I am not sure that you can locate 5 buildings to do that. But at the same time I want to get affordable housing. Jasmine: I live over in that area and I spend a lot of time on ute Ave. I used to take ute Ave and take the back road into the Aspen Club and I know what you are talking about when you talk about the problems of the handicap access in the back area. When I first moved onto Waters Ave there was no Gant. That is talking about prehistoric times and there was all empty pasture. Dean Billings used to keep his horses over there. Of course there has been a lot of problem with development in that area. And then we approved our great project--the 1010 ute project--which changed the complexion of ute Ave forever. My feeling about this particular project is ute Ave was already ruined when we allowed 1010 ute to go in because of our inexperience and there was already density in terms of the size of houses--these gigantic monster houses. Of course there aren't that many people in them which is somewhat of a blessing. But I think I would rather see a project like this which has 3 although somewhat large single family houses which at least have some people living in affordable housing in an area which is really close to town. And despite the fact that it is not a major road it is really easy walking distance because it is flat and it is very easy to get into town from that area. For those reasons, although I feel there are certain problems with the .- 4 PZM1. 21. 92 project as designed, I don't think that they are insoluble. And I do feel that this is a good parcel to have employee housing in this area. The applicants have scaled down the project from the one that was originally submitted which I think is a real plus because there is only a certain amount of density that can go in that area. But as far as that particular site and it's particular applicability for AH I think AH is a very good designation for that site. Roll call vote: Sara, no, David, yes, Bruce, yes, Richard, no, Tim, no, Roger, yes, Jasmine, yes. Motion carried. TEXT AMENDMENT Kim made presentation as attached in record. After discussion: MOTION - David: I move that Planning & Zoning commission recommend to City council adoption of the text amendment as written. Bruce seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Tim, yes, David, yes, Sara, no, Richard, no, Bruce, yes, Roger, yes, Jasmine, yes. Motion carried. MOTION Bruce: I move that we table to date certain of February 4, 1992 items on this application relating to Subdivision, Final PUD, 8040 Greenline, GMQS Exemption and also continue the public hearing. Roger seconded the motion with all in favor. MARSHALL HALLAM LAKE ESA REVIEW This hearing was a re-consideration of the hearing of December 17, 1991. ....."..- 5 ~......... - '->"',,", ",-' --- PZM1.21.92 After hearing opinions of the Planning staff, the City Attorney and Marshall's Attorney, Michael Herron, and discussion of members themselves: MOTION Sara: I move to deny the Marshall/Hallam Lake ESA application because it does not meet all the criteria of Ordinance #71. Richard seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Tim, no, David, no, Sara, yes, Richard, yes, Bruce, yes, Roger, no, Jasmine, yes. Motion carried. Jasmine adjourned the meeting. Time was 8:15pm. ,'1 6