Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19920908 kl' ,#'....-'" RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS - PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 8. 1992 After site visit Chairlady Jasmine Tygre called meeting to order at 4:45 PM. Answering roll call were Tim Mooney, David Brown, Sara Garton, Richard Compton, Bruce Kerr, Roger Hunt and Jasmine Tygre. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Tim: I went to the City Shop for a discussion and I had a lot of questions about whether or not that was the highest and best use. I was fairly satisfied as to what the overall plan is. The maintenance facility is going to be contained in the old shop site which isn't the ultimate maintenance facility. It is going to have to work and this came out in the meeting. I hope that when you guys do a presentati9n you will incorporate the overall plan. The long range goals, the immediate and the intermediate are all separate. But what you have to realize is that there is going to be a series of satellite maintenance facilities around town. And 50 this is just one. It is the main one. But we are stuck like up towards Independence they are going to have to have some kind of shop facility up there and out towards Highlands or by the Marolt property. Roxanne: The Water Plant is one site and the golf facility is the other. We are going to do a full presentation at your meeting of September 22 as a work session to get your input directly. Sara: What happened with the encroachment permit for the Grosse case? Roxanne: That went to an appeal before the Board of Adjustment and they turned it down by a 3 to 2 vote. They have talked with me again and want to know what to do but they haven't taken any more action on it. Roger: I think it is time we got the Library to allow elevator access to the main floor of the Library during working hours. In effect they have locked out the handicapped from the parking structure. Jasmine: We just came up that way. The handicapped spot is right adjacent to the elevator which is very nice and convenient. Then you come up and you cannot get to the main floor. You come out on that little patio so you then have to go around and have someone bring you down the stairs and into the Library which is ridiculous when there is an elevator access that would lead them right into the main part of the Library without any further adieu. And the Library has been keeping it locked. PZM9.8.92 STAFF COMMENTS Leslie: Brought Commission up to date on the Zaluba project. PUBLIC COMMENTS Phoebe Ryerson: I would love to have the __?__ make a map of the ? Betty Grindley told me she thought she had one on the bridge. From the Rio Grande Trail across to the Institute. It was suggested that some time that you would run from the Art Museum new bridge across to the south bank of the Roaring Fork River. It is right across from the Rio Grande Trail. There was talk and I thought it was on it's way to have __?__ of the river bank trail for people who would like to come over to the Institute and the music along the river. And that that would help in the future if we get the railway back. It will relieve some of the traffic on the current Rio Grande. Leslie: The Betty Grindlay Bridge is intended to help with that. Ryerson: I was told 2 or 3 years ago that you were working on that plan of Mill street down to picnic Point on the south bank that is inside the-- Leslie: There was never a trail proposed for the south bank. Richard: That runs through ACES. Ryerson: It was proposed over and over again. Richard: If you go on the south bank you go through ACES for quite a ways. Ryerson: You don't go through it at all. You go along the river. That is not through. Richard: The ACES property goes down to the river. Ryerson: Yes it does. But that was not-- Leslie: Right now we are talking about 3 bridges. We are not talking about between the Betty Grindlay Bridge across the river to the Smelter Bridge. Ryerson: Part of the Betty Grindlay Bridge to picnic Point. Leslie: Yes. There is a foot path. Yes. -'"'. "'.- 2 PZM9.8.92 / - Jasmine: It would be helpful if we had some diagrams that we can have at the bridge meeting. Leslie: That is part of stream Margin Review. You will see all the full packet and diagrams. There were no further public comments. MINUTES AUGUST 4. 1992 Sara made a motion to accept minutes of August 4, 1992. Tim seconded the motion with all in favor. 434 WEST SMUGGLER HISTORIC DESIGNATION Jasmine opened the public hearing. Roxanne made presentation as attached in record. There were no questions from the Commissioners and no public comment. MOTION Roger: I move to recommend landmark designation for the parcel at 434 West Smuggler. Sara seconded the motion with all in favor. Jasmine closed the public portion of the hearing. CUNNINGHAM CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR ADU Kim Johnson, Planning made presentation as attached in record. Jasmine: Is this condominiumized? Cunningham: It is a condominium duplex. Part of the conditions for the deed restriction is that this unit does not become a condominium unit. It is part of unit A. It was built quite a while ago. I acquired the property recently for my own residence and inherited both the unit and the __?__ We are just trying to legitimize it. There is no further condominiumization. The the the other thing we requirements. unit. wanted to make sure that we wanted to meet all It is 500.85. He used drawings and described /..,. "'", "- 3 PZM9.8.92 /,"-''''- -- Kim: The access as it is now works. Right now to enter the unit you come in through the laundry area. He wants to move his access into the closet so they don't have to go through the common laundry facility to get to the unit. I didn't require it as a condition of approval because Mack was still in the formulative stages with his remodel of the unit. Cunningham: There will be direct access into the unit from the exterior of the building as opposed to through the current laundry room access. We are going to file a deed restriction according to the requirements of ADU by the end of the month. Then those improvements will be--that would be subject to any improvements being made to the structure prior to any building permits. We are contemplating improving the insulation and clean it up and make it a little more modern. David: A condition should be added "Upon application for building permit insulation between dwelling units ie the ADU and the main unit shall be provided and shall conform with UBC requirements". Jasmine asked for public comment. Kim presented the certificate of mailing. (attached in record) MOTION Roger: I move to approve the conditional use for a 500 plus square foot garden level accessory dwelling unit within the Cunningham residence at unit A, 521 North 7th with conditions 1 through 3 of Planning Office memo dated September 8, 1992. (attached in record) In addition Condition #4 "Access shall be changed to be directly from the exterior". Condition #5 "Insulation between the dwelling units shall conform with the UBC requirements". David seconded the motion with all in favor. Jasmine closed the public hearing. PITKIN COUNTY BANK GMOS EXEMPTION Kim made presentation as attached in record. Sara: Kim, when does growth management allotment ever expire as long as the building permit is imposed? Vann: We have vested rights for a period of 3 years on the allocation itself. Growth management allocations are one of the 4 PZM9.8.92 few approvals that actually expire. This was approved in '91. So it would be 3 years from the date of the final approval which was sometime in '91. Richard: The removal of 60sqft of floor area? Where does that come in? Vann: We are filling a hole on the first floor. This adds FAR to it that was not contemplated in the original growth management application. So at the time that we submitted plans for the growth management allocation we have to remove 60 sqft on the second floor design to make sure the building stays in compliance. We have prior approval for 2,200. We are doing 370 as part of this application. 130 of that was included in the original application. Roger: What happens if you don't build under the GMQS application? Vann: All but 130 of it would go away. Roger: Do we have to account for that in this approval. Vann: The total 370 will be a debit in the growth management ledger at the time we pull a building permit to do this. If we didn't build the rest of it you wind up with only a total of 370sqft, 130 of which was subject to receive growth management allocation, 240 was a GMQS exemption and you have got a 3 bedroom deed restricted affordable housing unit for the total. Roger: What happens if you don't operate under the growth management application? Vann: We will just build less than what we asked for. MOTION Roger: I move to recommend GMQS exemption for 240sqft of expansion of net leasable area within the Pitkin County Bank with the 2 conditions listed in the Planning Office memo dated September 8, 1992. (attached in record) Included that the actual portion being built will be 370sqft--130 sqft of it will be done under prior approval. Richard seconded the motion with all in favor. EAST COOPER AFFORDABLE HOUSING CONCEPTUAL PUD Kim made presentation as attached in record. ,"""" Sara: I should announce as our attorney has asked us to do that - 5 PZM9.8.92 I received phone calls from the neighbors prior to this meeting concerning this project. David: Over a year and a half ago I had conversations with sellers of this parcel and the applicant with respect to providing architectural services on this project for which I have not been retained. I do not feel I have a conflict of interest. Commission as a whole had no problem with conflict on interest on David's part. Bruce: There has also been some exparte contact with me. No commitments were made on my part. Roger: Same here. Bruce: They have been lobbying us. That is what we are trying to say. Jasmine: I have not been contacted by anybody. I know that the neighbors are very concerned. The record should reflect that many people who are neighbors to this proposed project have spoken to various members of the Commission to express their concerns. Even though this is not a public hearing but we will take public comment. Tom stevens, representative for applicant: A piece of baggage that every developer gets when they hire me is that I spend a lot of time working with a site. I am trying to figure out what the site dictates in terms of development parameters. On this site it really is fairly clear. There are 2 distinct developable portions to the site with the ditch running directly between the 2 as well as steep slopes. Everything that has happened on this project is a spinnoff of the criteria that there are 2 developable portions to this site. The surrounding land uses to what we are calling the free market lots- -the south portion are all single family lots--the Riverside Subdivision. The zoning there is R-15. There are several lots that are below 15,000sqft. Right off the bat that identified itself as the area of the that needed to be compatible with the surrounding land uses. therefore single family detached lots. site And On the north portion of the site that is along Hwy 82 we have the Crestahaus which is just to the east and then we have got apartments on what is the west. So that lends itself towards mUlti-family. At that point we made the decision to go with the ~ AH zone project and dedicate the multi-family portion of this '- 6 PZM9.8.92 project to deed restricted housing. The program that we have right now is for 7 free market lots to be sold as lots only and 16 deed restricted units to be constructed by the applicant. As designed right now we fill all the criteria for AH zone. We are in agreement and understand fully that the 7 lots that are proposed are smaller than the average size lots in the existing Riverside Subdivision. However they are greater than lots required in terms of minimum square footage by the AH zone district. The parcel is 2.35 acres. If you devoted it all to single family dwellings with 102,000sqft, it yields 6.8 units. Then we have some slope considerations which drop that down to 5 and 1/2 units. But the difference between the 6.8 or the 5.5 to 7 units is something that needs to be considered. However those lots are in excess of what are required by the AH zone district in terms of minimum square footage. As well we carried that theme over to the deed restricted units. They are all in excess of Housing Authority guidelines for minimum square footages. What we are trying to do, and the Housing Authority has agreed, they want a situation where they can test some RO units. This has only 3 of them 50 it is a fairly small test but we will see what the market really wants in terms of those units. There are no maximum prices set on RO units-only that people have to be employed in Pitkin County. They are all sale units. We do not know what that market price will bring. The Housing Authority has signed off on that and would like us to proceed with it. Michael Gassman, architect for project: It has been the intent that this would be a place for long-term permanent resident housing. There is difficulty in parking, providing storage and providing children areas. There are a couple of things that we have really tried to empathize with this project. One way of looking at this thing is it is a parking lot. Another way is it is a playground that is going to have cars drive through it once in a while. There is no through traffic. The only people that are going to be driving in here are the people that live there. It is our dream that this would be the playground for the kids. It would be mostly all paved. These are trees in tree grates. Designed elements of the buildings is they all have big decks which " are big enough to put a table and chairs. It is an outdoor room. 7 PZM9.8.92 It is a kind of direct connection between the houses so you can see what the kids are doing. The other thing that goes along with the decks is that there are steps up to the units. The steps are 8 feet wide so they become an outdoor space. The storage we tried to turn one of the problems of the site into an asset. The buildings have to go into the hill. We would have to retain those banks somehow. We said why not retain them with the buildings and use that extra space for storage. These basements will be 42 feet deep. They are deep enough you can put 2 cars or 1 car and a lot of storage. We have tried to make this a place where you can have kids, where the kids are safe, they are off the street, where they have their own playground, where there is a good connection between houses and kids and you can see what they are doing. We feel it would be a neat place to live. stevens: About a week and a half ago we had a neighborhood meeting where there was as much attendance as tonight. There were 2 major issues that came out of that. The major issue is the access. Through the research that we have done we have been able to determine that Riverside Drive is public ROWand therefor access to what is the south portion of the site is a right. We studied the access from a couple of different configurations. We have met and already applied for an access permit. There is only one place that will allow us to access that because of diminishing site distances. The issue on access is to add 7 homes construction as well as the end user traffic to Riverside Drive. We are a net increase of 28% to the subdivision. That road is not up to standard. Anything that can be done "needs to be done in terms of bringing it up to standard while at the same time weighing out what makes that neighborhood nice. And what makes that neighborhood nice is a very slow sort of intimate road. One of the things that brought us to that configuration is what you saw today. The slope between the deed restricted portion and the free market lots. I have committed to the neighboring home owners that we will now take a further look at it. In the original plans we got into fairly massive grading. Then we came in off of Riverside which was easier. We will study this further and come back. What convinced me to take a further look at coming off of Hwy 82 ,., is construction traffic. The construction traffic is going to be '- 8 /'" - PZM9.8.92 '- an impact on the Riverside road and subdivision and we don't have a plan right now to mitigate that. If mitigation of that plan means bringing the road in from the highway 82 that is what we will have to do. If there are other mitigation means, I don't know of any right now. But if they are out there by the time we come back here with a final plan we will have exhausted the supply of all of those and bring back what we feel is the best plan. At the conceptual level which is where we are now if you could look at this site without the neighboring subdivision this is clearly the best way to go. However open the site up we have had some concerns voiced to us that still make some sense. We are going to take another look at it. The other issue that was brought up was density. People are more comfortable with the density of the deed restricted portion than they are the lots of the free market portion. The lots are larger in size than they need to be for the AH zone district. I don't know if we can lose lots and keep the project alive. We have complied with the AH zone district and all of it's dimensional requirements. The net impact to this community is going to be 1 and 1/2 additional lots. with density reduction on this property it knocks it down from 6.8 allowed units to 5.5. 5.5 is 1 and 1/2 units less than 7. So the impact in terms of what this zone district gives up in order to get deed restricted housing is 1 and 1/2 units. What they get is 16 fully deed restricted units at no cost to the town, the Housing Authority or the tax payers in categories 2, 3, 4 and RL. The fact that since the density is in compliance with the zone district and the fact that the net impact of additional units is only 1 and 1/2 and the advantage of this project is that we get 16 employee deed restricted units I think that the density is adequate for the project. Roger: Park Ave ROW is shown on the map on the west side of the property. Does that go to Hwy 82? What is the status of that ROW? Stevens: What is shown right there is the west half of the Park Ave easement which we do not own. We cannot use that. The east half of the Park Ave easement is apparently was l.50ft wide. Therefore is included--it is an abandoned easement that is included within what is the property line which is the general area that we have colored in. The area on top there is the west half. We do not own it. We cannot use it. Richard: Is that a public ROW? Stevens: No. It has been abandoned and now in new ownership. It ".- does go--the east half the portion that is on our property does go -- 9 PZM9.8.92 down to short of Hwy 82 on the east half. There is a 25ft jog. Bruce: Is the applicant the actual owner of the property or the contract buyer? stevens: Contract buyer at this point. Bruce: What could the owner of this property build as of right, right now with it's current zoning? answer to that is 5.5 single family units. Correct? on this site I think the stevens: Right. Bruce: So when we are talking density we are really talking 5.5 vs 23 (coughing) as opposed to 7. Because the current zoning is not AH. Sara: If this whole project went through with the rezoning for the 23 units, how much percentage of that is the annual 2% growth rate- -how much percentage of the annual 2% growth rate that is recommended by the Aspen Area Comprehensive plan would this project--there is an annual growth rate that they would like to see happen? Leslie: Right and we boil that down to 7 free market units a year and 53 deed restricted units. Sara: So that would be half of the deed restricted and all the free market would be gone with this project. Leslie: They haven't worked out what is going to be exempted from growth management. The AH zone district is exempt from growth management. Sara: However as a member of the Oversight Committee most of the community would like to see everything that has been exempted from growth management at least be included in the count of the percentage. Leslie: approved take out And it is right now currently. tomorrow the quota that is available the 7 free market lots. If this project was for residential would David: How many houses are on Riverside? ?: There are 24. David: You said 28% would be the additional load. "..- To Chuck Roth: What do you anticipate would be the additional load "- 10 PZM9.8.92 capacity of the road taking into consideration everything that is out there? Chuck: We have roughed in trip generation at about 100 trips a day before 7 lots. That would be about 12 trips per day per lot. Jasmine: So you are saying with these 7 free market lots that would add 100 cars per day onto Riverside Drive. Richard: Is that 1 trip a round trip or each way? Chuck: Either direction. 2 trips is a round trip. Richard: On the proposed free market lots under the 5 and 1/2 which would really be 5 units, how would the FAR on those be under existing zoning--the allowable FAR? Kim: Given a 15,000sqft lot the minimum in that zone district each house could be, would start at 4,500sqft allowable and if the lots were slightly larger than that they would go up 6sqft or 7sqft per 100sqft of lot area. Jasmine: So 4,500 would be the maximum allowable with a minimum lot size. Richard: And then under this proposal in the AH zone what kind of FAR do you come up with? Stevens: These lots vary between 3550 is the smallest and 38 is the largest. Richard: So we are not leaving ourselves open to that would affect the character of the neighborhood. been impacted from the Aspen Club side by some very some balloons I know it has large houses. Then a few things on the design of the affordable area. Those parking areas immediately as you come in--are those guest parking? Stevens: Yes, they are. Roger: To Chuck: The present trips per day on Riverside Drive is in the vicinity of 3 to 330 trips a day on Riverside Drive? Chuck: We haven't done a traffic count. Roger: That is sort of what your sounds like an awful lot of trips. some sort of verification of that. number has come out with. It It would be interesting to have ~ Richard: That assumes that everybody is there. 11 PZM9.8.92 Roger: Well, if he says 12 trips a day per lot, that assumes everyone is there. stevens: It is a dead end street so there is no outlet on the other end. So there are going to be more trips because there is no other way to get out. Roger: I understand that. It just seems like it is a high number we are dealing with. It would be nice to have some sort of conformation of what the existing conditions are and how much this would exacerbate the existing conditions. Jasmine: This might be something we might ask them to look further into if we decide that this project conceptually should move ahead. I remember reading in your package that there was a suggestion that the developer would actually show building envelopes on the free market lots. r"'" stevens: Another concern that came out at the neighborhood meeting was that what we have represented on the plans to date have been just the setbacks as dictated by the AH zone. And that in some cases and primarily as they would back up to the Park Ave abandoned easement was that that may be too close. What we have committed to doing is rather than just show the setback lines is come in and show an actual building envelope and that envelope will respect those kind of concerns. Roth: There are requirements to be met by code. One is that an arterial street is 100ft. The __?__ shows 50ft as being the ROW in front of the project site so we need to consider possible need for some ROW acquisition. In Chapter 24 there is actually an exclusion for a driveway permit onto Hwy 82. Perhaps if we could consider the access as being near a roadway instead of a driveway that might be something we could work with. Sara: If it became a road so that you satisfy the Colorado Dept of Transportation then it is listed on the map as a City road or a County road? Roth: It isn't that the Colo Dept of Trans is stricter against driveways. They have a driveway permit from the State. It is the city Code and the road would not necessarily have to be a public road. It could be a private road as the Crystal River Road at the Aspen Club. Bob Daniel, Project Engineer permit for a cut on Hwy 82. not all the way through with for applicant: We do have an existing Because it is a fire lane mumble egress at a fire knockout fence. My "'.,- 12 PZM9.8.92 understanding is that the Hwy Dept is using it as a private road. It is a private easement all the way through there. It won't be a driveway. There will be a dedicated easement for utility purposes and for drywell because all the way through there is wells to 20ft fire lane. Additionally and I wouldn't qualify a road which serves 7 lots based upon my interpretation of the code as an arterial roadway. Roth: No, Hwy 82 is an arterial. there. It has only got a 50ft ROW Daniel: Hwy 82 is not under control of the City of Aspen. Roth: The ROW through the land use process is addressable. Daniel: For City streets, yes. Roth: Well, it is within the City limits. Daniel: But the Hwy ROW is owned by the state of Colorado, not by the city of Aspen. When we submitted these plans the Hwy Dept did not ask for any ROW dedication as part of the permit process. In past experience we were never required an intersection improvements to access a property off the state Hwy. They requested ROW acquisition at that time. They haven't asked for it yet. Jasmine: We have basically 2 issues to consider tonight. One is the concept of using this land for a mixture of affordable housing and free market housing as allowed through the AH zone which is a mixture of free market and affordable or employee housing. In order to accomplish the conceptual presentation based on the number of units that the applicant has provided the rezoning to AH would be a part of that. It therefore becomes a threshold issue as well. There are various criteria that we consider for rezoning such as compatibility with existing neighborhood--is this site appropriate for a mixed development? Access obviously is very important. And then the conceptual PUD would be related to the plan that the applicant has actually submitted in terms of where the various elements of this plan go. Those are the only things we are considering right now. Richard Osur and my wife, Joan, 1300 Riverside Drive: We just closed on our house in May of 1991. We do not oppose the affordable housing project as proposed. We do not oppose the concept development of the free market housing. We do have 2 concerns about the free market plan as proposed. We assumed when we purchased our house last year that Riverside Drive was a dead end street. This was very important to us and was an important factor in our buying decision. We wanted to live on a quiet street ^'-.", - 13 PZM9.8.92 with minimum vehicle traffic. We like the feel of the neighborhood which is very unique in Aspen. We also plan to have our 3 grandchildren now aged 3, 4 and 6 to spend a lot of time with us in future summers. We worry about the effect of additional vehicle traffic that follows the free market development. And we worry about our own grandchildren and the many other young children in the neighborhood. You might ask what effect 7 new homes have in our neighborhood. That's almost 30% increase. And that is a lot. We are also concerned about the construction vehicles that will be using our street for who knows how many years to get this project done. We also feel that the proposed smaller lots are not in keeping with the integrity of our neighborhood. As you know there is a special feeling about our neighborhood. I am sure you felt that when you walked through it. And the R-15 zoning has that feeling. And I think the proposed smaller lots will have some adverse effects on the feeling of our homes. Fewer lots, perhaps 4 or 5 would fit into our neighborhood much better. And by the way the feeling of our whole neighborhood of lot size was also an important factor when we purchased our home. In summary we are not opposed to the affordable housing. We are not opposed to the project. We would like to see the applicant really work out a way for access to be off of 82. I think that would be very important. And if possible to reduce the number of lots somewhat so that it would fit in better. Pete stone: I live at Riverside Subdivision. I wanted to give you a couple of figures because--the density of the free market lots is a concern to me. Our lots at Riverside are 13,980sqft on the average. The proposed free market lots in this development are 9,262sqft. Our lots are about 51% larger than these. The proposed 7 lot development is really incompatible with our neighborhood. I would like to see access come off of 82 next to or through the affordable housing area because I think it can be done. I feel that it is really nonsense to have 2 entrances to a project if one entrance will do the job when the second entrance is going to have such a tremendous impact on our small neighborhood where we have been there for a long time. Our home sizes average 1,937sqft. The 7 lots which are much smaller lots could have homes up to 3,660sqft. I just don't see the compatibility there. I would ask that they consider the idea that if they would reduce the number of free market lots then /~- perhaps they could even do some things in the affordable housing .- l4 PZM9.8.92 -'",.-r section that might be more appealing. I have a problem when I hear the idea of children playing in an asphalt parking lot that there will only be green areas so close to the highway. There will be about 40 cars there and they are taking 4 trips a day. That is an awesome number of cars moving around there to have children playing either there or on steps underneath the landing. My intent is not to criticize Michael's plan so much as to say that I think he could do a better job by reducing the free market lots, maybe expanding the formal housing thing a little bit so that there is more room there, more open space, greater setback. I would just ask that you consider that. /"'''^- Lastly I think that Tom mentioned that if the number of free market lots are reduced that it is questionable about whether or not the whole project would be viable. I think it ought to be up to the developer at some point to demonstrate that fewer free market lots in fact would not be viable for them. I think that this way perhaps we can keep our small neighborhood of working people modest homes in tact from the tremendous impact by having the second entrance through. Kathy and Tony Welgos, 1295 Riverside Drive: We are raising a family of 4 children on Riverside Drive and came down the street today and we noticed that there is a lot of playing going on there. We live at the very bottom of the reverse curve and I am scared to death about this proposed project. '-' Michael said that he is providing a nice safe environment for children in the employee housing that they are proposing. Well, in essence you are threatening my children because bringing construction traffic is worse and a threat to my children. This has been an established neighborhood for over 30 years. It is heavily wooded and we want to keep it like the old flavor of Aspen which the Aspen community plan is striving to do. That is what it is there. Everyone on that street is an employee of Aspen. We are all hard workers. We deserve some consideration. You are providing a lot of concessions for these developers because of their employee housing and I want to say please consider us as employees of Aspen as well. I would urge you to provide access from Hwy 82 instead of Riverside Drive because of the hazards and impact. Joanna Fisher: I am currently renting a house on Riverside Drive but am purchasing a different house in the same area. I have lived in Aspen for 20 years and when you talk about the flavor of this area, it really is very special and I don't think anyone wants to see that changed too much. ,"""--.., <-,- 15 PZM9.8.92 I agree with everything that these people have said. I really think it is important to understand that these free market units when you have the prices that we have today these are going to be second home owners and the traffic I think that Chuck Roth has talking about is even minimal compared to what we have 'in our neighborhood now. We have all local people--all working people. And when you have these new units you have traffic coming in with maids and gardeners and all year round people taking care of it. You have remodeling going on all the time. I see this on the property management. I manage a lot of homes and I know the traffic that happens when you have got this kind of thing going on and it is really going to change the neighborhood tremendously. '- I think it is a great idea and I think that the affordable housing is a great idea. And I think it is a good location for the affordable housing because of the access that it has to town. But I feel the same way Kathy does. I am a little bit concerned about the urban flavor of that affordable housing. That is why we all came to Aspen. We left Chicago and Baltimore and places so that the housing project didn't look like that. And now this is what we are trying to build. It disappoints me as a citizen. It is not going to affect me as someone on Riverside Drive but as a lover of Aspen that project I think is going to be improved tremendously to have some green space and be a place where our workers might be a lot happier with it. ..^""'"'-. Lennie Oates: These are questions directed to the Engineering Dept. My understanding is that a cuI de sac--a road that accesses a cul-de-sac can only be 400 feet. It cannot be in excess of 400 feet. This is closer to 900 feet. And essentially what is happening is they are taking an existing cul-de-sac and creating another cul-de-sac off of it which in effect almost doubles that 400 foot rule. So I think that is something that I would like to have the Engineering Dept take a look at. The other Engineering issues are the reverse curves in the Riverside Subdivision. We do have a reverse curve which is the one that Kathy Welgos talked about. It says that reverse curves must be 100 feet in tangent. We have got ours measured out at 78 feet and I would like to have the Engineering Dept take a look at that. What I am saying is that this road as platted even if it is a public ROW without admitting that it is to the extent that it is shown on the plat is certainly in violation of the existing code. And I think that you complicate that when you create another cul- de-sac off of it. I was also curious that the tangent on the cul-de-sac in the '.,,- l6 PZM9.8.92 ,.- proposed subdivision was 70 feet and my understanding is that 100 is required. ?: It is going to be maintained as a private road. Oates: Also in terms of articles that I think that probably the turn-around diameter in ours doesn't work either under the existing code. Essentially what we did as a neighborhood group is got together and say well we can sit here and criticize and cast stones all they want. Maybe we can come up with something better. Let's take a look at it. So we went to some people and tried to come up with what we think is a better plan and we are told that it works. I realize time is short. I would just like to show a potential alternative development which would be a 4 lot scenario which would access through the westerly portion of the property. We are told that this grade works. I think it is a maximum of 8 and 1/2 and 10 works. In this proposal we would propose to enlarge and spread out the employee people affordable housing area which would require a re-location of the ditch and either a culverting or concreting which is going to have to occur anyway. It allows this affordable housing to spread out more and we think really makes the Gassman concept of the affordable housing a lot better than this proposal which I think when you look around Hwy 82 is going to appear like perhaps a slice of New York as viewed with a background of San Diego Freeway here. I am saying that the houses built up on the hills as you go through the valley of the San Diego Freeway. Essentially what this does for us is it creates a larger buffer area. It creates a greater compatibility with the Riverside Subdivision. And we feel that essentially you take a 4 lot scenario as opposed to the 6 lot scenario. We all know what this means in terms of price. You can increase the price as you lessen the density of the neighborhood. So the effect the developer should look at a proposal whereby he decreases this number of free market lots, looks at increased price and I think that makes all of us happy. Certainly like everyone else said we have no problem with the employee housing project. Michael Freund: We are not new to Aspen. We have been living at the Gant since 1978 and started coming to Aspen in 1972. I am a prospective buyer of one of these lots which gives us a little different perspective than what has been said so far. One of the desireable parts for us is the accessibility to town, walking distance etc. But also the affordability. You people talk like everyone is rich and everyone doesn't work and all this kind of thing--people moving into Aspen. But there are some working people and we would like ", ".-' 17 PZM9.8.92 to enjoy the benefits of Aspen after having done our work in other parts of the cities. So what makes this work for us is the affordable lot. By dividing it I obviously think the 7 lots or whatever it is makes that lot accessible to my income. And so I would like you to consider that part for the other perspective purchasers. ?: I am also a perspective purchaser. And I want it clear that I am in favor of the roadway coming off of 82 if it is reasonable to do that. The developer said he is going to try that. I do want to make it clear it is like everybody is looking at the people that are going to buy lots out there is going to be these people that are going to build these monster homes. I have an 11 month old girl. I can't afford a $900,000 house. And what is interesting too everybody says "Second home buyers". I have also been involved in the sale of these lots of which 6 are pretty much spoken for of which only 1 person is a second home buyer. Everybody else is a resident of Aspen. So you can't say developers are ogres. They are bad people. They are going to run over our kids. They are not. They are people just like you. ...,."""'- ?: I live in Riverside Subdivision now. My observation from hearing all this conversation and in walking by this piece of property for the last 30 years is that I think you have a challenge before you which I earnestly give you my support for. And that is that I have heard 3 goals. There is a goal to preserve the character of the existing neighborhood. There is a goal to allow a private developer. There is a goal for an employee housing project. I am in favor of this kind of development. It does wonders for the community. And contrary to all the arguments that were made about the kind of people that live there my experience is certainly different. But I would beseech you to not stick these poor people who work for a living and pay those mortgages with no room to live in. And so I would ask at the conceptual level to try and balance all of these 3 things. It has been my conclusion that they are not incompatible. I think all 3 of them can be met. But it won't be easy. And I know the allure of the employee housing, which I earnestly support, is so strong that we assume very quickly at the diagram level what it is like to live in 6sqft or hang out on the steps all day. I would ask you to give due consideration to these people who are going to live in that for a long, long time we hope and provide something of good quality. Jasmine: I think that most of the people who have come here from the various neighborhoods are very sincerely motivated to preserve their neighborhood. That is a very important thing. We don't have an official neighborhood preservation component of our Masterplan. And yet in a way I think we should. So many neighborhoods have ,- '- 18 p' ',-, PZM9.8.92 -- become non-neighborhoods. My own neighborhood is becoming a non- neighborhood. And there is nothing I can do about it. So I am very sympathetic. And I think a lot of the people on this commission are very sympathetic to your very real desires to preserve what is in fact a real neighborhood. There are certain aspects of this proposal which we feel are appealing and other aspects which need to be worked out. David: Conceptually, yes, I think the project as it is conceived not counting the circulation is very acceptable to me and very desireable. And I think for a lot of reasons would be desireable for the community. But I agree with a lot of the comments I have heard. I am not convinced that access for the entire project cannot be contained off 82. Engineering diagrams and studies that I haven't seen yet and therefore I am just not convinced that all 7 free market lots as well as the affordable component could not be served off one curb cut. --- I sort of feel that 7 housing units in a subdivision of 24 or 25 is not terribly overwhelming. It is such a sweet wonderful neighborhood 7 more houses in that sweet wonderful neighborhood could only enhance it. But I do agree that a little bit of traffic or what could be a significant amount of traffic for the construction of new homes. If it were my kids playing in those streets, I am not sure I would be particularly happy about it either. I would probably be very upset about it. Given the current circulation I find it very hard to accept without further study showing that this is the only way that it can work without showing that a single access cannot happen. I also feel that the affordable housing component even though it is held back and it is within the strict rules and regulations of the AH zone pertaining to density, square footage, FAR and number of dwelling units and parking spaces feels so urban to me. Right now you have a real urban plan. And by adding a few dormers and making it more rural and more Aspen in character might make it a little more acceptable. But I think it is very urban. I saw the drawings. I like the drawings, Michael and I think it is a great little project. I think it is better than 60 to 70% of the affordable housing projects that we, have seen in this community. I would support tabling this. I would like to see further study on the circulation before I would rezone it. Sara: place level I approve of the rezoning because I think it is a wonderful for mixed use. I congratulate the applicant. The mix and of income that they have corne up with in the affordable 19 , PZM9.8.92 '- housing component of the project. However somehow in reading Fritz Benedict's letter I would like the applicant to take a good hard look at of whether Park Avenue is really--cannot be condemned. According to Fritz he really questions whether this is private ownership. That would be a really happy solution. ""'.-.... I would like to see access off of 82. Another cul-de-sac off of a cul-de-sac makes no sense whatsoever to me. And it destroys the whole aspect of the whole nature of that lane. In conceptual too I want to urge the applicant to come forward with a traffic plan and parking plan for construction and construction workers. I know that if we have access off of 82 that destroys probably the architect's concept of playground pavement. I hope not. That is why I want to pursue Fritz Benedict's access idea. I approve rezoning. Tim: I am in favor of rezoning this parcel. I think that it is a unique site and it accomplishes a lot if we do it. I am in favor of a lot of things in this plan. I kind of like having a couple more sites just so that the price is--I think if the sites are bigger and the houses are bigger then it takes it out of a neighborhood kind of context and I would like to see this Riverside Subdivision expanded and the consciousness of that neighborhood expanded--not a whole new set of houses built on the buffer of this neighborhood. So I would like to see as much compatibility with Riverside and keeping the lots smaller. I think if there is any way to use Park Avenue I am really in favor of that. '-' I don't have a lot of objections to this design. I think that 2 bedroom units without the apex roof, I object to. I think that that is something that I would like to see you work with. And I would like to see as much living space be built in on a comfort zone as possible. And maybe building that higher pitched roof-- not just having a block of flat roof in the middle of the project. It might help everybody's eye. This is a good use of this site and I think that you have to put yourselves in our shoes too. We are really trying to accomplish something by allowing as many affordable units come into this valley as we can. And I think this is a very compatible location for these units. Richard: I am very much in favor of this kind of project on this site. An AH zone type project. I am concerned about the access. I think Riverside is easier. It might be nice for the people buying the new lots that they can wonder around and feel like they are out in the middle of nowhere. But I think from the point of view of the existing neighborhood and the distance traveled that access from 82 would work a lot better. If that results in some reduction in the overall density both in the number of free market lots and the number of affordable lots, I think that is a ,,- 20 --<.'...~.'....... PZM9.8.92 '- worthwhile tradeoff. If access were to remain off of Riverside Avenue I would certainly like to see no more than 6 and preferably 5 free market lots if you can't bring it off of 82 to reduce the traffic as much as possible. Roger: I very much favor rezoning this to affordable housing. However there is a major caveat in that along the lines of what Richard just said. If the free market lots are accessed off Riverside, then that logically is part of the Riverside Drive neighborhood and the lot size or density should be commensurate with that neighborhood. I really don't like the Riverside Drive access for this given all what has been said. But particularly how much the density has to contribute to the traffic in the Riverside Drive neighborhood. I can see whereas if you continue the R-15 concept in that area then Riverside should be able to handle it. But I much prefer the idea of accessing the free market area off of Hwy 82 and I like the idea of the Park Avenue or along the western border of the property access to it. And if that is the case then that free market section is no longer a part of the Riverside Drive neighborhood and then go for the 7 lots. I do like the project generally. Bruce: I think the mixed use project is fine on this site. However for the same reasons I gave Leslie on the Hyman Ave across from CRW site--the Kraut property--I am not prepared to rezone in advance of having some of these questions answered. Specifically I can't find anything in criteria C and criteria D when rezoning have been satisfied with me. So I haven't reached the threshold yet for rezoning. I have got to know more about the access and those kinds of thing--traffic generation before I am prepared to rezone. It doesn't matter what we are rezoning it to. I think those criteria have to be studied. So I am not ready to do anything yet. Jasmine: I would have to say that I agree with the majority of the commission. I think this is an ideal site for a mixed use project. The access is what is holding everybody up. I think Tim made a very good point. If you reduce the number of lots in the free market portion to 4 or 5 you are then going to have bigger lots and you are also going to get monster houses which I think would be out of keeping. And I think that is something that is a tradeoff especially if the access comes off Hwy 82. I think that the neighborheed, provided you had sufficient buffers between the free market lots and their lots, would probably rather see fewer smaller houses if it didn't mean the people in those houses would be running over their children. So I think the access really triggers a lot of what you do with this project. That part is a real threshold issue. I think the majority of the Commission and I think Bruce as well would be very much inclined to favor this - 21 - PZM9.8.92 project depending on what happens with the access. stevens: We have committed already to taking a look at the access. We have plans being drawn for access off of Hwy 82. They are not the level of detail of these plans. Based on the comments tonight we are prepared to completely scratch the access off of Riverside Drive and bring it in from Hwy 82. What we will commit to doing tonight is scratching the access off of Riverside Drive and bringing it in off of Hwy 82. We have looked at those plans in enough detail to know that it works. We have lotting plans on the south side and we have housing on the north side to show that it does work. What you will see however is a plan with significantly more grading coming through the center of the site. Just so you know that. On a conceptual level it is not going to change the project. We are still going to have multi-family housing on the north side of the site. You are still going to have single family detached lots on the south side of the site in generally the same configuration that you have now with the exception of the fact that we will identify building envelopes. The thing that will be different is we will bring access off of Hwy 82. One caveat to that though is we need to check with COOT to make sure that we can add 7 more single family homes to our access off of Hwy 82. If that simply cannot be done then this commitment to do that comes away. If it can be done we will do it. It was then determined that the majority of the Commission would not feel comfortable with granting approval at this stage. MOTION Roger: I move to table action on both PUD and rezoning for the affordable housing project to september 15, 1992 at the City Shops. Richard seconded the motion with all in favor. Meeting was adjourned. Time uty Clerk ."......... '''- 22