Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19921020 AoVU r' RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS '............. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 20. 1992 Meeting was called to order by Chairman Jasmine Tygre. Answering roll call were Tim Mooney, Bruce Kerr, Roger Hunt, Richard Compton and Jasmine Tygre. Sara Garton and David Brown were excused. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Tim: I have been asked to look into what is going on with the employee project that is on Cooper street--those gray modular units that were brought in and put on East Cooper Street. The specific objection is that the exterior street light that they have in their parking lot is out of context with the residential area. It is a florescent private light in their parking lot and they have 2 of them. They are 20 foot high lights that are industrial strength- -something you would see at the hospital parking lot. And they are casting a different light than the residential people in that part of town want to have. Kim: I will have this checked into. STAFF COMMENTS Kim: Update on the non-compliance on the property at Durant and Aspen. I went out to the site with Bill Drueding and Maria Crook from Environmental Health Dept and the Fire Marshal. We all agree that there really were no health and safety violations that could be enforceable by the Municipal Code. We did send a nice letter asking for co-operation from the owner. That was over a month ago and nothing has happened. Jasmine: There is nothing we can do under the current code? Kim: That's right. Jasmine: and ruin apply, it we can do So then if people want to let their property go to rack unless they get to a point where various regulations just has to be an eyesore for everybody. So that is all at this point. , Leslie: Regarding the elevator from the garage into the Library: The intent is to have a buzzer when somebody comes up in the elevator and they need assistance from somebody who works there. They will buzz and then the person will let them in directly on grade instead of the upper level. They absolutely cannot make any additional improvements to the building because of the old library situation. ,1":' " It was then decided to schedule an extra meeting on the loth of November. PUBLIC COMMENTS '.-' There were none. MINUTES SEPTEMBER 8. 1992 Roger made a motion to adopt minutes of September 8, 1992 Tim seconded the motion with all in favor. MOCKLIN REZONING Jasmine opened the public hearing. Sunny Vann submitted the affidavit of public hearing. in record) (attached Leslie made presentation as attached in record. sunny Vann, representative for applicant: application is not included in the packet. record) He then did a background and update attachment in this record. A copy of our (attached in this as included in the Jasmine asked for public comment. "",,--.. Jon Busch: I am a resident of Williams Addition which went through some rezoning about the same time that the Williams Addition came into the city. The Williams Addition was looked upon as a small historic neighborhood, as a buffer, as something to break up the mass of the very high density area--the highest density area in Aspen other than the base of Aspen Mountain. I would like to point out to you that there are other committees which have recommended that this site is the last remaining large parcel undeveloped virtually in the City of Aspen. The only other one that comes to mind is the Sanitation District site down by the river which they have indicated to everyone that they want to reserve for future San Dist Emp Housing. What I would like you to consider very seriously is the idea that this neighborhood which has taken, not merely the brunt but virtually all of Aspen's high density employee housing needs and it is still taking more. If you put such incredible density all together, open space becomes in fact a relief valve. Open space is what keeps property values up, what keeps people respecting their neighborhoods, which keep people having pride in neighbor- hoods. This property has been recommended by a number of people as the prime location left in town for a major piece of open space. '- No one should ever forget for a moment that the Rio Grande playing field is not open space. That is a temporary use and will almost certainly be placed into transportation-related uses in the future. ". - '"'.,'-,,, /,.,.,--... ,,~,- And that means that on the north side of Aspen there will be no open space. In fact--Garish Park which doesn't even go to the river, it is 2 lots, very, very tiny little undeveloped piece-- there is nothing in that entire area. By rezoning this to the same density as Hunter Creek, Centennial, the trailer court, you are doubling the value of the property, creating much greater hardship for any governmental entity to justify purchasing the property. And I think finally that it's kind of erroneous to say "Well, it is dense all around it so what is a little more?" And actually the property is big enough that it isn't a little more, it is a lot more. It could be a major development. I think that it is premature. I like to see the flag wave. I like to say "Hey people let's get off the dime, we have got to do something". But there is an issue here that is greater than the rezoning of the property. It is an issue of overall development in the community. This is such a key parcel to the future of the community. I am talking forever future of the community that a rezoning of this land right now will preclude your options, will severely limit your options for what happens to that entire neighborhood in the future. I would very much like to see you not rezone it. Let us say that it was left R-15 and you got 4 or 5 luxury homes on it. In any case what you still end up having is the lot of open space. At least somebody looking out of their condo window is not going to look into the wall of another condo. And I really think rather than just destroying the whole neighborhood or turning the whole neighborhood over into what in big cities has similarly become urban blight. This kind of density packed together like that becomes crime problems. You have got to have a safety valve over there. You have got to have some open space to help keep a neighborhood coherent to keep a neighborhood in which people can feel some pride in. I agree with council that until the developer has something that he really wants to do with it that it shouldn't be changed. And the argument presented here that the owner can't do anything to the apartments that preexist there, that kind of condition has happened year after year after year. They are non-conforming uses allover this town. There are ways of handling that short of rezoning a very large parcel in a maj or, maj or upzone to the highest densities we have in town. Vann: The issue here is not the level of development on the property. There is no development proposed for the property. This is an existing mUlti-family structure surrounded by multi-family uses. Any application for development will need development rights to be approved. In order to obtain those development rights it would even be necessary to tear down and re-build the existing structure or to compete under growth management. The likelihood of achieving the kind of theoretical density permissible on this property I think Leslie said some 40 odd units couldn't be done today in a free market proj ect in this community. You simply cannot provide sufficient affordable housing to make the numbers work economically. There was no further public comment and Jasmine closed the public portion of the hearing. Leslie: Conditions #1 and #2--1 need to change to read "Prior to signature of the ordinance approving the rezoning by city council the applicant shall pay sewer service charges and water tap fees". Roger: I would suggest "any outstanding" Vann: #3--there is some confusion as to whether the trail that is presently between Lone pine and Mocklin is on Mocklin's property or on the Lone pine property. We suggest that we revise #3 to reflect that we resolve the location of the current trail and that the easement issue be resolved in connection with any subsequent development application. After discussion-- Vann: For the record I believe it is an exaction of the trail easement in anticipation of development application with no basis of fact. -- Bruce: I really see no reason to have #3 in there. All we are doing is rezoning the property. The trail is there now. It is being used. If the applicant comes in with a development proposal we can exact whatever we want to exact in the way of trails or easements at that time. So I really don't see any reason to have Condition #3 in here at all in any way, shape, or form as part of this rezoning. Jasmine: Trail easements have tended to get lost in the past. This is just another flag for us. It doesn't really affect anything at this point and it won't affect anything until the development proposal comes in. Roger: I am somewhat sensitive to Jon's comment. I would rather rezone the portion of this property where the problem is occurring to RMF. But the other portion of the property leave it the same way it is. I don't know where that dividing line is. I would like to somehow put everyone on notice that this is a critical piece of property as far as the overall plan of that neighborhood. Where I am comfortable with R-15A right now, being able to probably satisfy the open space needs, I am not sure that the open space requirements of RMF will satisfy those needs. Vann: I suggest that if an application came in under RMF the density that you felt was inconsistent with the adopted plan then you would have a basis for questioning the approval of the project if the density supports it. _. " I think it is a widely misunderstood concept of this community that theoretical density under zoning whether it is approved are 2 different matters. And that the fact that it is zoned RMF does not guarantee the full density under that zone district. I think it is a misconception that simply rezoning ensures that the density that will result will be maximum. Leslie: On page 4 where I talk about a worst case scenario and I say "Calculation indicates that there is enough land area to support 42 3-bedroom units"'. That is not taking out land for parking, affordable housing, slope density reduction. Some of those 42 units would be required under growth management to be affordable housing and then you have your open space requirements. So even though next door you have Lone pine which is 40 units on almost 3 acres given the dimensional requirements and the affordable housing requirements today I think you are looking at will below 42 3-bedroom units. Vann: The only way you could achieve any kind of density near it's maximum allowable would be under the AH zone district where you don't have to compete under growth management. Richard: The timing of this is unfortunate. It has been 3 years since it was annexed and it comes right before a potential change in regulations and the possible written intention of the city to require this as a park. The legality of the situation now seems to favor the applicant. MOTION Tim: I move to approve the amendment to the official zone district map for the rezoning of 0202 Lone pine Road from R-15A to RMFA with the conditions as. amended as outlined in the Planning Office memo dated October 20, 1992. This does include #3. We amended the language in #1 and #2. Bruce seconded the motion with all in favor except Richard. The vote was 4 in favor with 1 opposed. DESIGN WORKSHOP SPECIAL REVIEW FOR PARKING Leslie made presentation as attached in record. There was discussion regarding compact car parking space. Roger: The dumpster is in a location that is obstructed by a parking space. I am looking at the service aspect of getting BFI into that area and accessing that dumpster. #~,.." ? We have a 1-yard dumpster. So on wheels it comes out very easily and down into the area where they pick it up. There are 3 different places for the dumpster. . '-- Leslie: I would like to amend the conditions of approval. I would eliminate #1 and #7. And #2--Amend to say that prior to issuance __ of a CO the applicant shall make a one-time payment for 1 parking space that cannot be accommodated on site for a total of $15,000 paid to the Finance Dept. And then #4 "A sign shall be posted at the entrance of the driveway off of Garmisch st stating that this is a private drive. Roger: It should say "Driveway. "Private Driveway. Do not block" as opposed to Leslie: And I do need to add one more condition of approval. Condition #7 to read "This Special Review is conditioned upon Subdivision Approval between U.S. West and Design Workshop by the City Council". MOTION Roger: I move to approve the amendment to the on-site parking plan for 120 East Main and the payment-in-lieu for 1 parking space that cannot be accommodated on site as required in the Office Zone District of $15,000 with conditions #1 through #7 as amended. Condition #1. Prior to issuance of a CO the applicant shall make a one-time payment for one parking space that cannot be accommodated on site. Condition #2. Prior to issuance of a CO the applicant shall implement the approved parking plan. Condition #3. Is the second condition #3 as stated on Planning Office memo dated October 20, 1992. Condition #4. Is as stated on that same sited memo however a sign should indicate as "Do not Block". Condition #5. Is as stated on the sited memo. Condition #6. Is as stated on the sited memo. Condition #7. Special Review is subject to Subdivision approval by the City Council. Richard seconded the motion with all in favor. ZALUBA NON-COMPLIANCE Leslie: decided 1992. Brought Commission up to date on this project. It was a further review of this case will be held November 10, The meeting was then adjourned. Time was 6:00 P.M. commission then continued with a work session on the Rio Grande Conditional SPA Masterplan ~'''>-