Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19930316 . ~-.<y'''''' I .....~- r- "'.,.,,,"'.... " "- - x,u A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING , ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 16. 1993 Chairlady Jasmine Tygre called meeting' to order at 4:30 PM. Answering roll call were Tim Mooney, David Brown, Sara Garton, Richard Compton, Bruce Kerr and Jasmine Tygre. Roger Hunt was excused. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS There were none. STAFF COMMENTS There were none. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were none. TRANSIERRA CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR ADU Jasmine opened the public hearing. Kim made presentation as attached in record. Kim presented public notice of mailing and posting. record) (attached in Bruce: Regarding #9 with new language. the river. in the conditions--I think we need to come up Ultimately all runoff allover town goes to After short discussion: Jasmine asked for public comment. There was none and she closed the public portion of this hearing. Bruce: To applicant: I think I heard you indicate that there will be a full time occupant of this ,ADU. ?: The owner is aware of the deed restriction to it. He lets friends use it. He doesn't to my knowledge have a rental pool of any kind. He wants somebody to live in this unit full time. He is not interested in short term. He wants a caretaker essentially. Jasmine closed the public hearing. MOTION Bruce: I move to approve conditional use for 500sqft above grade accessory dwelling unit for the Transierra residence at 1410 Red Butte Drive with the 11 conditions referenced in Planning Office memo dated March 16, 1993. (attached in record) PZM3.16.93 David seconded the motion with all in favor. GORDON CALLAHAN RESUBDIVISION SUBSTANTIAL PUD AMENDMENT LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT Leslie: This is to be tabled. We are bringing it back to you on April 20. There is a change in the application so there is not need to open the public hearing. It has to be renoticed. EAST COOPER AFFORDABLE HOUSING. FINAL PUD SUBDIVISION. REZONING TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING ZONE DISTRICT GMOS EXEMPTIONS AND SPECIAL REVIEWS Jasmine opened the public hearing. Kim made presentation as attached in record. Tom stevens, applicant brought Commission up to date on the project. Michael Gassman, architect gave a description of the dwelling units '-- in the proj ect. stevens: In terms of the actual site plan all access is now off HWy #82. The conditions that CDOT put in access to the site is a right turn lane-off Hwy 82 heading east out of town. That has been incorporated into the plans. Once you are into the project the roads are private. The main road that leads up to the free market homes ends in a cul-de-sac. We have reviewed the cul-de-sac with the Fire Dept. It is in excess of their turning requirements. The road which leads into the deed restricted portion accesses the parking as well as fire access. Grading and drainage on the project really falls into 2 different categories. The free market lots will obviously be reviewed at the time the plans for homes are submitted for building permit. One of the conditions that the Engineering Dept wanted on the project was that there is a note on the plat that all drainage within the free market lots is contained on that lot. We will comply with that. Within Lot #8 of the deed restricted parcel all drainage is also being self contained. ,.,'.' The landscaping for the project will obviously revolve mostly ...... 2 PZM3.16.93 around Lot #8 of the deed restricted parcel. There are a couple of things we need to accommodate. In trying to minimize the effects of Hwy 82 we went about it 2 different ways. One is we are fencing along Hwy 82 as well as adding considerable evergreen plants. We have a kid's play area and the fence will provide some level of safety for that play area as well as sound and visual to the highway. within the project we have got shade trees planted just outside the entries to the units. Then as we move out past the units we get back to native vegetation and as we get closer to the ditch we get more into riparian vegetation. We really had to make a decision as to how we were going to handle the ditch. Right now we are not comfortable with the ditch not leaking. So we want to line the ditch. We have met with the Riverside ditch representatives and cleared this with them. While we are going to the expense of lining this thing, we are also going to go to the expense of turning it into an amenity for the project. We also met with the Parks Dept in terms of acquiring tree removal permits when it comes to removal of trees. We will replace those trees on a caliper per caliper inch trees. The areas directly around the units are sod while as you move out beyond the units you get into more native areas. Easements on the property--all access and utility easements are contained within the appropriate easements. That has been reviewed with the Engineering Dept. The Parks Dept has requested a pedestrian easement which gets from Riverside Subdivision to Hwy 82. We are willing to grant that easement. We would just like for them to say which of the 3 possibilities they prefer. A pedestrian easement and a walk will be constructed along the property line at Hwy 82 on our property but within the setback. At conceptual submission it was requested that we provide easement. At final it was requested that we actually build the walk. That is fine. We will comply with that. The setback along Hwy 82 has been increased to 12 and 1/2 feet per the Engineering Dept. utilities to service the project--all the utilities are directly adjacent. We will be utilizing Aspen Water & Consolidated San and one of the advantages of this project is that the water line that services the Riverside Subdivision is a dead end line and ends in the cul-de-sac directly adjacent to this project. As part of the construction of his project we propose to loop that line, connect from Riverside Subdivision to Hwy 82 resulting in a loop from Riverside and improving their service. One of the issues that came up at the last meeting was Homeowner's ,", ' 3 PZM3.16.93 - Association. We have taken a look a that. The deed restricted portion for the project units #1 through #12 will be in a separate association. Their responsibility will include exterior building maintenance, court maintenance and snow removal, common area maintenance and taxes. The free market lots including the resident occupied lot #4 will be in a separate association from the deed restricted units and their responsibility will revolve around maintenance and snow removal. Regarding the issues that were brought up at the last meeting: First is density. This project received unanimous approval on a 16 and 7 program. 16 deed restricted and 7 free market. We are now at 13 and 6--Lot #8 to be deed restricted parcel is within the allowed FAR for the AH zone district. The AH zone district allows by special review for this FAR to be varied up. We are not asking for that. Lots #1 through #7 are significantly larger than required by the AH zone which requires a minimum of 3,000sqft. We have for the free market portion 9,700sqft and the RO lot is 6,600sqft. So all aspects of this project propose less density than what is allowed. In order to look at FAR we really need to compare what is allowed vs what is allowble--not what is allowed on this project vs what is in Riverside Subdivision. I think that we have all come to the realization that at some point in time Riverside Subdivision will probably expand to it's maximum allowed FARs. For this reason we think it would be poor planning to voluntarily reduce the FAR on this project while not looking at a similar situation on Riverside Subdivision. Essentially all we would do is in the future years create an enclave of small and perceptually substandard homes. We don't want to do that. We want to make this compatible--not segregated. The other issue that came up was the 70/30 ratio of deed restricted vs free market. We are currently at 68 and 28. We are not sure at this point whether Council has the ability to vary it down to 68% or not. What it really comes down to is whether or not we have a 3-bedroom unit or we replace that 3-bedroom unit with 2 units and any other 2-bedroom configuration mumble . What that does it gives us the same number of bedrooms so we house the same number of people. It will get us to the 70/30 split. Our concern is that it gets us away from what has consistently been told to us is the requirements for housing and that is family housing. We are willing to do either one. And we will rely on your recommendation and Council's final judgement on this. It is our ---- 4 /'*.'".."''' ,- PZM3.16.93 preference to house in 3-bedroom configuration because we think that that is what the community needs. But physically the change from that 3-bedroom to a 2-bedroom or 1-bedroom above can be handled within the current building footprint and parking footprint. So it is not a big deal. This project has gone above and beyond the requirements of the approval process and the specific zone district. I think we have demonstrated that throughout the course of this project. Meetings and discussions were held with the neighbors and it has produced a significantly changed plan for revisions to access, revisions to density, additions of open space. This project not only fits the intent of the AH zone district but it fits the dimensional requirements of the zone district. But more importantly it fits within the goals of the community. It fits the goals of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan exactly. It keeps density within the metro area. It keeps it along the established transit route, has minimal impacts to the community based on it's location. When looked at in terms of community good this project fits. The bottom line is that this project will realize no increase in free market lots. We have an allowed use by right of 6 lots on this piece of property via the current zoning. All that is being afforded by the rezoning on this project is deed restricted housing. That is a clear community asset. Bruce: Can you show me exactly where the Riverside Subdivision ends and begins in relation to your project. I know the Cresta Haus is on the bottom side. The applicants showed on drawings locations of these properties. Bruce: So east of your subdivision is all Cresta Haus, south and west is Riverside. What are these small lots right here? Tom: That is Buckwheat. Kim: Since we found that the ratio didn't quite meet the 70/30 I have had talks with Tom Baker about it. And he feels that the really close number to be making a call that the code establishes the minimum ratio and that the applicant is bound to meet those ratios as part of this project. And there are a couple of options available including breaking down one of the units into 2 units. It looks as though the density can be met by doing that a studio unit rather than 1-bedroom. But we should get together and double check my numbers. I think at this point so that we can get forward on this that we really can't be discussing 2% one way or the other. '"" Tom: That's fine. We are going to make that conversion very easily. '- 5 ,'-'- -........- PZM3.16.93 Tim: Because of what I understand about RD. It seems to me that they are not as restricted as say a category #3 would be. Or a category #4 3-bedroom. And it might be a proposal that, and I am for the restrictions, I am for having it as employee oriented as possible. Having the resale value restricted as much as possible. It may be instead of having resident occupied condominiums in the complex we ask them to change from RO designation which we really don't have a handle on, to the well-defined category #3 or category #4 3-bedroom, 3-baths. And that might be some way for us to restrict the project even more to keep the cost to potential buyers down even more, to keep qualified families focused on having the ability to have 3 bedrooms so that they can have kids or they can have whatever kind of space they need. This might be something we can propose in order to keep the 3 bedrooms which I think are more valuable in this project than studios or 1 bedrooms. To take an RO unit and make it a category #3 I think is going to make it more available to people who have less income or less assets or fit a lower income stereo type and make this available to a more unfunded buyer. Richard: I raised the trial balloon of further reducing your FAR caps and I think Michael Gassman raised the point "Well we will reduce it if Riverside will reduce it". And I haven't seen a response from Riverside. They just keep asking for more without offering anything. And that debate is really outside of our purview. We were kind of involved in it just to try to keep everybody happy. Larry Fredericks point of the sidewalk--I think any improvement along the street there is helpful and if you do have to go out by the wall at the Cresta Haus--I walk up there or ride my bike up there frequently and just having another couple of hundred feet of sidewalk would be a major help. I hope we can continue improve- ments along Cooper street as soon as possible. And the issue of the fence--I think you should do at least a thumbnail shading study to see if it would shade the sidewalk and you leave ice there. Look at the height and the setback of the fence and the materials you use so that it works to keep the kids in but doesn't block any more sunlight than necessary on the sidewalk. Tim: I am in favor of the AH zone. I think this is a good application of it. The debate between Riverside and this project I just don't see. The weight of the opinion from Riverside that ,- it should be less dense--I think it balances for me. It has a basic compatibility for me. And I think with the other things that '- 6 PZM3.16.93 are in the neighborhood I live in that area this is very compatible. I think it is a great opportunity for the City to take advantage of the adventure of an investor to provide opportunities for people to have the ladder of affordable housing to climb. I think it is a good project. It fits. I think the houses that are in the free market side are going to be restricted in who lives there and how much they are worth because it is part of this project. I think those people are going to be local people and I think that helps balance it out. I like the project. Sara: I am so happy to see private parties come in and offer something like this instead of building Godfather estate homes. You are answering a community need. You are not ghettoizing employee housing. It is in with a mixed community in there and I think that is wonderful. It is going to be lively there. Jasmine: I agree with the members of the Commission. I think this is a very good project and I think this is the kind of project we were hoping to see when the idea of the AH zone was first proposed. I think the density is appropriate because of the location close to downtown. Part of the thing that is going to make it possible for local residents to be able to live near the city and be able to raise families near the City is to have greater density near bus routes so that people with children can still have their kids be adjacent to the City environment but also be a protected play area. I think the size of the units are built on a larger scale with greater width, greater liveability is certainly a wonderful thing. I think your responses to the concerns of the people who live in the Riverside Subdivision is very commendable. By increasing the setbacks on the Riverside Subdivision side and the fact that you have a completely different access. While you are adjacent they are really very much separated as far as the 2 communities are concerned. I think the applicant has addressed a great deal of the concerns of the neighborhood. I think this is a project that the neighborhood can live with and the community can be happy with too. I am very enthusiastic about it. Bruce: What is the square footage size cap for the homes in the free market? Tom: We haven't calculated them. There was some discussion on this. Bruce: So 3,660 is the outside cap. There is no guarantee that the homes that will be built will be that size. They could be 2,000. They could be 2,500. The price of the lot is going to be .,- a function of what is going to determine the size of the house. 7 .1"',... PZM3.16.93 - Tom: The 3,660 absolutely _cap ___to the sliding scale. ___mumble___ So while this project is subject to that --- Leslie: Then you go up to 9,000 and then that is it. But the road easement comes out of the lot size for allowable floor area and any other except the pedestrian easement. Bruce: So it is unlikely that there is going to be a 3,600sqft house. Jasmine: So all representations made by the applicant shall be considered conditions of approval unless otherwise stated. "All material representation made by the applicant in the application and during the public meetings with Planning & Zoning commission and city council shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval unless otherwise amended by other conditions". So that is Condition #23. MOTION Richard: I make a motion to rezone the subject parcel from R-15 moderate density/residential PUD to AH Affordable Housing PUD. Sara seconded the motion with all in favor. MOTION Richard: I make a motion to recommend approval of the East Cooper Affordable Housing Project final PUD development plan, Special Review for Open space and Parking in the AH zone and GMQS Exemption for the 6 free market lots, 12 affordable town homes and one RO affordable lot as deed restricted per Housing Office's approval with the 23 conditions included in Planning Office memo dated March 2 and March 16, 1993. Sara seconded the motion with all in favor. RIO GRANDE CONCEPTUAL SPA MASTER PLAN ADOPTION Leslie made presentation as attached in record. What we are going to be asking Council to do--we are asking for your recommendation to Council on this is to extend that deadline in the code that says conceptual plan only lasts for 2 years unless you do a final plan. And if you think about some of the uses that are being proposed for ~ this site--the valley-wide rail, the trolley--will not take place in another 2 years. And I would hate to see all this work that we .........,.<. 8 r- PZM3.16.93 -~ have done on this just kind of go away after 2 years because no one submitted a final plan. So what we are aSking Council in the resolution would be to kind of permanently extend this conceptual plan until a final plan comes in or until staff or the Commission or the Council initiates an amendment to the conceptual plan. Sara: Why are you asking for conceptual now if people aren't ready? Leslie: Because there were people who were ready and came through and Council denied their final plan and wanted to go back and do a conceptual plan. That was the theatre, recycle and it was the specific site plan for the trolley barn. Sara: I have trouble with an expiration asking to eliminate that because thank goodness these other conceptuals expired. Things went away. Things have changed in this community. That might happen again. I don't want to waive that expiration date. David: Can't there be a 2 year renewal? Leslie: Council has the ability to extend conceptual plans. What it means is that at the end of 2 years if some things haven't happened then Council would have to extend the 2 year plan. Bruce: I don't have a problem with the conceptual plan being extended 2 years from now. I have a problem with changing the rules to accommodate ourselves. And I question whether we can actually do that without amending the code. If the code says they expire in 2 years unless extended when 2 years comes, let's extend it. Let's don't automatically extend it now. Bruce: I have one comment on this plan. And that is that I thought we had said over and over again that we did not want the words "Snow Melt" anywhere on this plan. And I see it on all 3 scenarios. Leslie: If you will notice though in your map there you do not see the snowmelt facility inside "A". Originally the Rio Grande group in our text said we want the elimination of the snowmelting facility off the Rio Grand property within 2 years. It is a completely inappropriate use. At our work session with Council, Council said "No way". They said "Yes we want the snowmelt off of site A. Take it off. We don't want to see it on the map in site A. But we don't want to exclude the possibility of locating it up on site B in the recycle area". '--, 9 PZM3.16.93 Bruce: The point is the Council is going to put the snowmelt where they want to put it anyway. But I just don't want it on these maps indicating that that is a potential use for that. We have all said time and time again "We don't want the snowmelt on the Rio Grande. It is not a good place for it". So let's don't even put it on these maps. If they continue to use that site as snowmelt because of all the reasons that we all know about, that is one thing. But when we put it down there in blue and white that it is a possible snowmelt it gets built in and it will end up being on the final masterplan as snowmelt. And I don't want it there. Leslie: Do you concur that we have moved it out of site A? Bruce: Yea. Big deal. Jasmine: That is not the point. Leslie: So the question to you is are you not going to pass this plan--are you not going to recommend Council passing the plan if it is not on there? Bruce: On a condition of approval that they remove the snowmelt from the plan. Leslie: That i~ my question. Pass it on with a recommendation to council that you remove possible snowmelting off the map. Bruce: Yes. Leslie: And amend the text to reflect that also. Bruce: Now we are approving one of the three or are we approving all three? Leslie: No. What 1, 2 and 3 are is they are 3 different scenarios that could happen. Bruce: The problem I have with that is that it indicates that we have given tacit approval to elements of all three and I am not sure that I want to do that. And based on comments of the others is that they in particular don't like 2 and 3. #l might be liveable. I am sort of the same way. If what we are doing is approving the conceptual plan that gives us the most flexibility I think Scenario 1 is it. If we approve scenario 1 as our conceptual masterplan we have not precluded some of the things that are depicted on scenarios 2 and 3. But if scenarios 2 and 3 become a part of the conceptual ....- masterplan they are down in blue and white again just like the language that says "possible snowmelt". And that gives somebody - 10 PZM3.16.93 else the chance at the "Big Aspen Land Grab" if they become part of the documentation. It goes about I and not of land goes to back to my comments that I have made over and over again like it as loose as possible and not get things locked in get people thinking that they have a claim to that piece because of some document that came out of this group and City Council. Jasmine: I couldn't agree more. Tim: I agree too. Leslie: And I really struggled with how to lend some guidance for you all when that person comes in with a final plan but keep it as loose and flexible as you want. And that is one of the reasons why we went to these 3 maps because it shows a variety of ways that you can locate the stuff on the property. Bruce: Well, if we are 2 years away or more from the final plan anyway, I don't know that we need to get things locked in. Let's leave it as flexible and open as we can within the things that we have talked about. The buffer and site A and site B and one of them being art and one of them being transportation. In my opinion that is all we need to do at this point--just conceptual. Sara: It even precludes that there might be a scenario 4. We don't know that yet. Richard: What you guys are talking about here seems to me is that it is all right to have a railroad come into town but we ought to go through an amendment to have a terminal. All 2 and 3 do is give conceptual locations for a terminal. It doesn' t give anybody anything that they don't have or they are not going to ask for anyway. So I think it is a mute argument. Tim: I think the argument can be made that if someone comes in and says do you see what kind of capabilities they have given us to have a terminal and we can capitalize on this. Why should we do any kind of plan to indicate what we are willing to give? I can't see why someone should take our conceptual gifts and then turn that into some kind of business aspect of what they think we are willing to allow them as far as what their development is capable of returning to them. I like no words on it. I like the lines drawn and I basically want to have it as open as possible so that it is whoever is in the creative driver's seat of a trolley or a theatre or a train comes " to us and says "This is what we think is most compatible with the community". And then we can say "Well listen, that is just too far '- 11 PZM3.16.93 out for us. We think this is what the community really would like". I think for us to indicate to anybody what we are willing to give is just like waving a flag. "Come on in. Build here. Take this opportunity and run it". Richard: Who is going to build a train terminal? Tim: Well, we are going to find out. Jasmine: I just don't know the way out of this. We could be arguing about this until 10 O'clock and we have to decide what you want and what we want. And what we want I think is not the same thing as what you want. Or anybody else involved in Rio Grande. How can we be talking about applications at this point? Leslie: We had 3 applications that came in all at once. Jasmine: Yes, but they had no business coming in right now. That is what I am saying. It is all too preliminary. Leslie: If this is adopted, they can come in. Jasmine: That is the problem. It is still being done piecemeal. The first one in gets the biggest chunk of meat. And I don't like that approach. And that is what has been happening. That is how the Teen Center got on there. Leslie: land? Do you think the City should develop everything on the Jasmine: No. But you have to wait and see what is happening with either the railroad or the trolley or whatever before anything else happens. And until you have a plan of where they are coming in, everything else really has to be put on hold as far as I am concerned. What you are saying is you want us to extend this so that people can come in with individual requests for individual development proposals. What I am saying and what I hear from the rest of the Commissioners is that that is not what we want to see happening. Richard: There are 2 possibilities for requests. The trolley company and some railroad consortium which probably would be a public entity. Unless the federal rules change and give massive subsidies to railroads, no private operator is going to come in here again and try to build a railroad. _'" Leslie: And you have the theatre. '- 12 PZM3.16.93 Richard: That is on Lot A. Jasmine: But it is still part of the plan. Leslie: And you have the skateboard, basketball plan. Bruce: The problem I have is that we have this recommended motion or recommended approval of the conceptual SPA and I don't know what that is. If the conceptual SPA includes all 3 of those scenarios then I am not ready to make a motion to approve it. If the conceptual SPA can be and my preference would be scenario 1 as the conceptual SPA with an appendix that refers to other possible future scenarios I might be able to buy into that. But I don't want scenarios 1 and 3 to be part of the conceptual approval of what we have approved. I don't want to grant approval in any shape or form if they go in as an appendix saying that these were also considered but were not adopted as part of the conceptual SPA. Leslie: So if you look at page 14 where there are the goals. I think the goals are pretty general. Bruce: I don't have any problem at all with the goals. I don't want is for those to become part of the masterplan. The thing conceptual Richard: What happens if we don't give some indication of where we want things? Then we are left with the same block box we have got now. If somebody comes in and says "I want to put it over here" with no guidance whatsoever? Tim: It might be the best idea. Richard: Well, then we can always amend it. Sara: council wanted us to get more specific. Leslie: Yea. And you are in complete opposite perspective from our first go-around 2 years ago when we had the application for the tent. We had the application for recycling. We had the application for the car barn. You all approved that. And Council is the one that didn't go with your recommendation. They thought it was really piecemeal. And you guys were comfortable with that. They, in our work session with them, seemed more comfortable with the 3 maps. Bruce: I basically approve of all of this. And would even go so far as to approve it with scenario 1 attached to it as the conceptual SPA for the Rio Grande. Leslie: Scenario 1 has the trolley barn on it. 13 PZM3.16.93 Bruce: Well, it has just got that little kiosk thing. I don't mind the trolley barn. I am not worried about that because it is still conceptual. Leslie: So is that. Bruce: Yes. But that cuts up the playing field and some other things that I don't find acceptable at this point. Tim: Can we take it off? I mean the trolley barn and just go with a basic map that is the map that we have. Richard: That is no masterplan at all. Tim: Why indicate to anybody that--the trolley barn even though it exists in some people's minds, it really doesn't have any substance. Leslie: And stick with our 20ft buffer between site A and site B. Tim: Just make it a basic landscape depiction. Jasmine: So you think we could use map 2 as the approval? Tim: It is possible. Bruce: No. I don't have a problem with putting certain things on there. I don't have a problem with where the trolley is, the theatre, the art park and as much as I regret it I don't have a problem showing where the possible youth recreation site is. But they will be the first ones in here grabbing that land. I just don't want to lock in the specificity of detail that is depicted on scenarios 2 and 3. In my vision scenario 1 does not preclude us at final SPA from doing either scenario 2 or 3 if that is where we end up whenever they come in and there is a train come in or a trolley come in. We can always go to scenario 2 or 3 if that is the plan that makes the most sense. Leslie: The only detail you have left out is the rail terminal. Every other detail on there but the rail terminal. What I hear you saying is that you don't like these footprints here. And if I take this footprint off here and I take this footprint off here and I keep recreation/transportation and I go over here and I say light industrial, essential community services, transportation-- Bruce: Yes--you are headed exactly the right way. ".,........ Leslie: Keep right here the youth recreational and take this off - 14 PZM3.16.93 here. But this is our art theme, our art orientation--passive park/art theme and take off the ticket kiosk. Then I take these 3 maps and put them as an appendix and say these are some things that the group kicked around. One of the things we did is we had to make sure that if you put the trolley barn, recycle that you could still fit some of these uses within there. That was a lot of making sure these things not only from perspective of size but use and compatibility. And I am really reluctant to throw that out. And I spent $600 on the maps. Bruce: I understand that. And I told you I can buy into these maps being appendixes but that are not a part of the conceptual SPA approval. Leslie: In the text we have a whole section on recommended land use activity. I went into great detail about what the group thought he could do to enhance the passive park. Bruce: The thing I don't want to do is get locked in. And one thing we talked about at previous meetings was the fact that we have got under the parking garage now we have got where the Chamber offices are but that is a transportation center. It is designated as such on the map up there. The Teen Center is already built. Who knows how long that is going to last. It may be at some point in time the Teen Center becomes the ticket kiosk and the transportation center that is already there--the Chamber offices (tt) to be built when they may not be necessary at all. They may not need to be part of the final SPA for this site. Jon Busch: What I am hearing you coming to is where you were before any of this happened. Where you were before we submitted an application for an SPA for a trolley barn and the trolley track which was folded into the SPA because a trolley line isn't in the zoning anywhere. Tim: I think you have to realize too that, as time goes on, the concept of a trolley might not be as much transportation oriented as amusement park oriented. And whether or not it really functions with the pace and the time of life that we are living with now vs when it was conceived 2 years ago is changing too. So I think functionally a trolley might already be obsolete. So for us to have these conceptual things dictated on a map, I really don't know that a trolley is ever going to be up to date again. It is a romantic idea to me and I just don't see how it is going to keep pace with the needs of the community. Bruce: How much specificity do you have to have in order to have ,,"" a real conceptual masterplan? 15 PZM3.16.93 Leslie: I think it is more a level of what you feel is enough guidance for you if someone comes in with a final plan. Then you can take this final plan and it is consistent with this conceptual plan. You have read our conceptual plan. You have seen what our goals are, our concerns are--things that we think are important to preserve. In our text we talk about the viewplains, connecting this river and things like that. Really what you are going back to is you are going to have to rely upon the text. Bruce: Does anybody have a problem with the text? There were a number of "No" answers. Bruce: See, Leslie, I think we are all in agreement about the text. And if there is a way that the text can be the masterplan and have it appended with these scenarios but make it very clear that we are not locked in to anyone of those scenarios. If there is a way that that can be done-- Leslie: I can tell you right now the Youth Center is going to come in with a basketball court and probably a skate board ramp. And I think we have found a good site for that that is not going to impact any future development. Jasmine had to leave at this point. vice Chairman Bruce Kerr was now Chairman of the meeting. .....-....... Leslie: You have emphasized and Council has emphasized that the playing field stays until a regional transportation facility is located mumble And if that is what you are comfortable with and if that is what Council is comfortable with then we have done our job. I will go back and amend the map. I think I would like to include these maps as an appendix but in the title say "These were not adopted as part of the conceptual plan". Bruce: The only thing I would suggest is we tried to make it clear to the Youth Center folks that if they are allowed to use a piece of that land as a basketball courts and a skate board pipe or whatever that it is not their land. It is not forever basketball courts and skate board pipes. That it is a use that we are allowing on this piece of land until such time as we have to put the trolley barn there or the rail terminal or whatever. Richard: I would suggest that scenario l--that map seems to embody exactly what the text says and what Leslie just re-iterated that if we don't have some specificity then the Youth Center can come and say "well, we want that site over where the trolley barn is blocked out for our basketball court". 16 PZM3.16.93 .-- Leslie: They already say that. Richard: I think we need some guidance to that effect that if there is no specificity they can say "We want all of this". Leslie: The specificity that I would propose to amend the map to show that we have a light industrial essential community services, youth recreation area and we have a recreation/transportation. So then we lend some direction. Bruce: What we don't want is to have Leslie: The Great Aspen Land Grab. Bruce: Yes. And to leave it open and leave some judgement with us and with City Council to make those decisions when they need to be made. And not make them prematurely. Bruce then opened the public hearing and asked for public comment. Al Blomquist: On page 14 of your text the first paragraph I would recommend that you strike the last sentence. It is too blanket. When you say including light industrial, it is an invitation to the auto lot or any other light industrial. Because of its close proximity certain uses would be allowed. That would be OK but by making it this broad it is an invitation to just about everything that is incompatible with the overall park and the landscape that you are trying to get. Leslie: What about if we caveat the light industrial as essential community services? Blomquist: Well, even that I have a problem with. In other words I think you identified the trolley barn. I think that is enough. The recycling is my second point. I really feel it is improper to encourage them to think in terms of 5,200sqft recycling facility for processing. I have had this argument with the committee and the recycling people. And the processing of the recycling should all occur at the dump. And they should have gathering trailers but there is no reason for them to occupy as much land as they are occupying with all of those bins and everything solely because they say they can't afford to haul it out on a daily basis. certainly some arrangement for hauling it out daily--getting it ,out of town and out to the processing center when they are talking bailers and all of this sort of thing those should be regional service bailers and regional service storage and done on a regional basis. And what this facility at this point should be should be /' strictly a place where they collect it and it is hauled off nightly so that it doesn't occupy this huge amount of space that they are 17 PZM3.16.93 talking about and creating an industrial function at the site. If it was just collection, it would be simple. We have the trailers at Wally-World and elsewhere in Glenwood that have several bins in them. All I am saying is do we need to allocate this much space and is it your plan to allocate this much space for a 5,200sqft recycling plan which is for processing rather than collection. Then the trail on the plans when they show the 12 or 14ft wide roadway and trail into the theatre facility, I would recommend in there several places where it is mentioned in the text that if the existing trail from the Courthouse down be widened to 12 or 14ft and be the sole access into the area. From a planning standpoint what that does is it unifies the entire eastern portion of the site for whatever combination of uses you get and it allows the Parks Dept to continue landscaping this roadway as a landscape buffer between the east and west parts of site B. My point is if you unify that site and use the trail and the roadway as a roadway and trail rather than--instead of h~ving a road and a trail. Why? Finally I think you should definitely eliminate the snowmelter. Either it is there or--Iet them do it right or it is going to be gone. And Council says it is gone. So why do we keep allowing it to be there? It screws up the ability of the Parks Dept to go ahead and landscape. Jon Busch: One thing I would like to say is the Teen Center went in in a vacuum. The Teen Center went in because there was no masterplan down there and a lot of people felt that this was an inappropriate place to put the Teen Center. If the Teen Center comes in with their playing fields and what have you and there is the absence of any information as to where a potential trolley needs to go and you are back where you were with the Teen Center and mistakes can be made. f~' The trolley is at least real enough that we brought to you a conceptual plan for conceptual approval which is a lot further along than a lot of things. If you leave it a generic slate and say you leave it open for mistakes of a major way that can be made. Sara: I think that as far as recycling goes as planners we need to be very realistic regarding what is happening with garbage. And I think that probably--in my roll as property manager where I live- -I know that probably this dump is really close to being closed. It has to be relined and so on. So I think probably, and from the "'--- 18 PZM3.16.93 nation, communities are going to get direction that they have to provide areas for processing bailing and so on. Each community does so that it can be hauled out of here compactly. But as planners for this community we have to have some area within Aspen so people aren't just driving to take their trash and that haulers are coming to here to pick it up and cart it out. Another reason I don't want to see this extended date is just because of what happened to that performing arts center and when the experts came into town with what should be built, thank goodness that expired. The theatre in the park which I support wholeheartedly and give money to could go belly up. So I don't want to see a footprint here that says "theatre". I want a site that says "art facilities and passive park" because just as Bruce says by a footprint being a theatre facility that somehow a council down the road or commissioners down the road think that that always has to be a theatre facility. Why? It could be for open air theatre or a place for concerts. So I don't want to see footprints. I would rather see site specific and no structures in there. I do think too it shouldn't be just out there as this cloudy area that everyone can come in and then as Jon says we are back to where we were where it is everyone's wish list and the Rio Grande can be that for everybody. We have certain taxes that have gone for certain purposes down there and the community has come to us and said "This is what we need now or what it can be used for and we have just gotten specific with where those different uses should be. But then I think that is good enough. But then I think it is up to each group to get their act together. Richard: I think we ought to look at your comment on combining the pedestrian and vehicular access into one corridor. Leslie: It specifically says that in the text. which site that combination should have. It doesn't say Richard: I think for most pedestrian use coming down, from the center of town it makes sense to continue it down that way where the bike path is now. I think I am the only one up here who doesn't have trouble with your maps and I am willing to certainly see the ones with the railroad facility put in the back in an appendix. I think we need something that has--that doesn't say trolley barn, scenario 1. I think that map is good balance of generality and specificity. It shows a possible layout where everything works and it would preclude somebody from coming in first and making another use .........".,..~ 19 PZM3.16.93 ""'- impossible. I don't know how we are going to get to a useful document without something like the map in scenario 1. Tim: I agree that we shouldn't limit ourselves to anything. Even the language including light industrial. We say that it is the SCI zone and why take it a step further? And to be specific and describe a 5,200sqft facility--I agree, I think that that and to describe exactly what the trolley barn can be and describe all of these things just I think describes too much. It limits too much and I think there might be something that comes out of the community if everybody knows that it is available that really works better than something that has been on the burner for years and might not work. So this specific language I don't think it is necessary at this point. And even to itemize and categorize areas and give them the capability of having in the description a thousand square foot office, I just think that is too much. I think we ought to see what the plan is and let people put their best foot forward and come up and compete. Richard: Aren't you going back to the Land Grab leaving it wide open? That's what it sounds like to me is you are opening it wide up again which is what we have been trying to get away from. Tim: I don't think we are. I think we have some basic goals here and then to recommend a land use we are describing somebody's job for them. I think if we have a basic generic map we have goals and we know what we want when we see these applications. I think it is time to let the community decide what it needs and let people come in and propose something and compete again. Richard: It is not like we are making up these things. "Well, we think there should be a 5,200sqft recycling center. That is what Jim Duke asked for. And Jon came in with a plan that he thinks works for a trolley terminal and that is why that language is in there. We aren't making it up for them. They gave us the language. And that is the only reason it is in here is so that the potential is there for everybody to be accommodated. I don't think we are dictating anything. David: I agree with Richard. I think he is the only one who doesn't have problems with the maps. I think maps and diagrams are really good to help get reaction and to help focus communication and discussion and I agree with everybody else that a certain lack of specificity and footprints is desirable. Although 99% of the time I think more construction and footprints are better than less. This is a tough 'site to do a lot of things on. Tim was saying the commuter rail lines technically have to go down 20 /' PZM3.16.93 -, the middle of the site if this is a rail hub and I think there are some certain technical things that are available and possible that maybe haven't been addressed and might be addressed in the future literally putting everything on grade and building a park on the second level. That is a wild idea but it is possible. Bringing the rail line right through Clark's Market and perpendicular with the transportation center. I can also see bringing the rail line through here, putting the rail terminal where the trolley barn is shown on scenario A and putting the trolley barn where the Obermeyer building is. I can also see putting it in the middle of Puppy smith Road and reconfiguring that and keeping it on the other side of the street so this stays more open. I agree with everyone--keep the footprints off. I can see splitting up the recycling facilities in several locations around town to keep it more accessible to the community and keeping the mass more under control. Leslie: Council wants us to look at that little triangle where Auto tech keeps all their cars. David: That would be a great place for the recycling. great place for the trolley barn--the other end of the building is a great place for the trolley barn. That is a Obermeyer There bring no further comments-- Bruce then closed the public portion of the hearing. Bruce: Those of us who were at the work session with Council last night heard Council say that one of their priorities that came out of their retreat was a public facility of some kind. Some of this is growing out of what happened about the potential ice rink in Wagner Park. And also I think some embarrassment over the fact that our public facilities are sorely lacking compared to other resort communities ie Vale, Steamboat and Breckenridge--on and on. I don't want to do something here that precludes forever that facility should that facility ever come about being in this location. It may require all kinds of things. It may require payment of funds from one City fund to another--buy out the land and buy another piece of land. I don't know what all it would require. But that is the kind of thing that I don't want to preclude by what we do when we draft a conceptual masterplan for this site. ,~' 21 PZM3.16.93 MOTION Bruce: I would entertain a motion to table to date certain of April 20, 1993 and to continue this public hearing. David: I so move. Tim seconded the motion with all in favor. SCHERMER HALLAM LAKE BLUFF ESA REVIEW Kim made presentation as attached in record. Doug Graybeal: (showing pictures) This was taken perpendicular from the lot line. Tom Cardamone was concerned perpendicular from the building face which is a different viewpoint. We are holding back off the bluff. The client did not want to take it all the way to the maximum point closest to the bluff. He is on that board. He is concerned about Hallam Lake. We went through some revisions with HPC which had us juggle plans. Kim: I recommend a condition that if there is any landscape additions I specifically intended to mean other than trees. Any hard surface or man-made kind of situation that they would have to be reviewed. Graybeal: We intend to have a door out of the master bedroom onto this deck and make a small flagstone patio area outside that deck. Nothing right up to the bluff. It is probably an 8 X 10ft patio area. The shed is being removed. It is an old shed but as this photo shows it has been severely modified so this huge glass panes which overlook Hallam Lake. We have got permission from HPC to remove it. What we are going to do is donate it to ACES and Tom is going to revise and put it somewhere on the back of his property. Bruce: Kim, was that condition #9--would that be an insubstantial amendment that would not be required to come back to us? Graybeal: I am willing to commit to what I said about hard surfaces. That would be an 8 X 10 area outside that patio with no decks overlooking the Lake. ,,;,,. .~ Kim: There are exemptions from full ESA review that I think are specific to items that would be behind the building or no closer than the existing development and so therefore I don't think that this would meet those criteria. 22 PZM3.16.93 Bruce: Doug, do you have any problem with any of the conditions as they are now stated? Graybeal: My understanding is that the staff review of that item I don't have a problem with that. Kim: I can't guaranty that because the only exemption criteria is that the development takes place more than 30 feet from the top of the slope or is obscured from the slope by other structures. So if you want to state for the record that the deck shall be X by X - Graybeal: I will state for the record that we intend to create a patio area in size of 8 feet by 10 feet directly north of the deck on the upper level. We will not protrude over the property lines or be seen from-- Tim: Can you tell us about the lighting that you are going to have to illuminate that deck? Are there going to be lights on the house that shine down on it? Or up from it? So that at night what the back of the house is going to look like too. Graybeal: As far as the back of the house the only intent we have is to have a light by the door which would be a down light at the master. That is the only doorway that is close to the back. There is another doorway that exists up right here below this deck surface and there is a door up above on that. In both cases we intend on having a low level down light. As I mentioned in my application the client has requested emergency lighting. As you realize the clientele of people moving into Aspen has changed. And they have a situation where they would like to have the capability of a single switch for emergency light to light the grounds--not with the intent of effecting Hallam Lake but with the intent of lighting up the perimeter of the building. This would be a light that we could shine down from the underside of the deck that we can get the perimeter of the building so you are basically light the building surface and the ground out about 6 feet around the property. Bruce: There is a condition in here regarding that. condition acceptable to you or not acceptable to you. Is that David: That is basically saying that those would be mounted to a maximum of 3 feet high hanging downward. Graybeal: That is not acceptable to the client because of their situation. I would like to work with Tom on that. The client is ,,,"""' very high-powered. They have had some situations where there has been a threat to their family. -- 23 PZM3.16.93 Bruce: Well, that is all well and good and I appreciate that. But what we need to do is to send this back and have it get to a point where Tom and your client who is on this board can agree that these are all acceptable or we ignore Tom's advice at this point and pass it without some of these conditions based on the representation that the client will still work with Tom. I don't feel comfortable about doing that. I would rather send it back and let these things be worked out so that it is acceptable to your client and it is also acceptable to ACES. Graybeal: The idea behind emergency lighting is truly emergency. They don't intend to flick it on for a party. You have got a husband who travels. And a wife who is home who wants that safety factor. David: Would this be a motion detector or strictly a switch? Graybeal: She intends to having 2 locations with a panic button to light up the exterior of the house. There would be no triggering of animals or anything on the exterior. David: Ideally where would you mount the lights from your client's perspective--on the building so there would be floodlights? Ideally so that it looks like a normal fixture of some sort but it will give a good pattern around the perimeter of the building so I would see mounting a post off the deck off the rear or off the building, not necessarily off the eaves but something that is going to light up a good ground area. I know you can get a good spread by getting it 8 to 10 feet off the ground. Richard: What is the intent of condition #10? Kim: I talked to Tom as he said that emergency lighting is a concern. I suggested to him that putting a height cap on that it would be non-intrusive into the yard area itself but also to provide a general illumination on the grounds without being as visible from off site. David: You might try infralighting or some other light spectrum. Sara: We have a responsibility to the neighborhood and to the community. And we don't know if this woman is a panicky woman or she has teen age kids who want to play with the lights. ~ I think there are other ways to security beside lights. I really object to lights. --""",,- 24 PZM3.16.93 Bruce: If we eliminate condition #10 but include language in condition #8 which says "The landscape plan and rear view landscape sketches and an exterior emergency lighting plan shall be submitted and approved by ACES and Planning staff prior to the issuance of any building permit". Sara: What about neighbors? Have neighbors been notified of this? Kim: I don't know. Sara: There must be some sort of lighting ordinance within the town. Kim: We have a 2 line lighting requirement that says that lighting cannot be of a negative impact off the property. But I think the residential zone is not as directly applicable. We do on occasion have complaints that we really have a hard time doing anything about. Sara: We have this behind us at Midland Park. There is a house that is lit up like an ocean liner and it is hard to sleep. And we have asked him to turn lights down but we don't have a lot of teeth to work with him. Richard: Is this emergency lighting intended to light up the ground or the whole facade of the building? Graybeal mumbled something here. Tim: Is this on some kind of professional security system's advice that--or is this just-- Graybeal: This is the client's request. Tim: This is what the client thinks they will have a comfort zone with. But they haven't gone out and gotten professional advice on how they--if they have this type of intrusion or they have this type of problem-- Graybeal: We have a meeting with a security consultant Thursday. Tim: I think that there are a number of solutions that might satisfy their security needs better than flood on the back of the house. And I think that might be something you explore too before you just have one idea that is the catch all. Richard: It is the casual intruder you are going to get with the lighting system not the serious-- ~,,, ".."', Tim: Or the person who is trying to sneak in to try to kill - 25 .,""'<'>,. PZM3.16.93 - somebody. Are they going to live in one side and sell the other side? Graybeal: No. He mumbled again. Kim: My concern with leaving it open is that on every occasion where one of these reviews comes to staff that Tom Cardamone is always in a very tough situation. He is not only trying to be a good neighbor and to try and get people to see ACES side of the story whereas and then he is usually dealing with people who are either benefactors of ACES or in this case sitting on the board to where he is walking a very fine line. I think if we throw it back for Tom to have to work it out with someone there is going to be an unfair pressure situation where he is trying to exert as much pressure as he can but realizing that it might be better to not take a harder stand. He appreciate it when the Commission takes the hard sell. Maybe 3 feet isn't a good height. It may be too narrow. Maybe as you have suggested something back towards the structure rather than on the structure or overhanging it--shining out and down is more effective. Richard: I don't want a vapor lamp on a 30 foot pole. MOTION David: I make a motion to make a recommendation that we approve with recommendations #1 through #9 and #11 and re-word #10 to say that "The applicant will provide a lighting plan that does a couple things. #1 the source of lighting would not be visible from ACES. And #2 the light thrown off by the lighting fixtures would not light the house greater than above the first floor or not impact the neighbors". This leaves a lot of options for you and lighting consultants and security consultants to come up with. This would be an emergency lighting system not to be left on all the time. Graybeal: I think that sounds agreeable. If for some reason they want to get up a little higher I will come back to you for that. ,,-l"'''''-~ David: Because if they are inside, from the ACES what we are seeing or someone at a function at ACES would be seeing would be the upper half of the building. "--- 26 ,,'-., PZM3.16.93 - Kim: Are we including any future landscape development including the 8 X 10 patio in the landscape plan #8. David: Bruce's previous language should be include in the motion. Richard: Does that patio extend into that 15 foot setback from the edge of the bluff or whatever we are working with? Kim: The way I measured it on this section drawing that if you came out 10 feet from the edge of this patio you are still outside of the 15 foot setback. David: I will include in my motion that that be not within 15 foot of the setback. Tim seconded the motion. Bruce asked Graybeal if he understood all of the conditions accurately. Graybeal: Yes. Bruce: OK. All those in favor of approving the Schermer Hallam Lake Bluff ESA Review with conditions as amended say aye. All voted in favor. There being no further business Bruce adjourned the meeting. Time was 8:25 PM. *",'" -~ 27