Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19930504 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 4. 1993 Chairlady Jasmine Tygre called meeting to order at 4:30 P.M. Answering roll call were Tim Mooney, David Brown, Sara Garton, Bruce Kerr, Roger Hunt and Jasmine Tygre. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS There were none. STAFF COMMENTS Kim introduced the new Historic Preservation Officer, Amy Amidon. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were none. MINUTES APRIL 13. 1993 Sara: I move to approve minutes of April 13, 1993. Bruce seconded the motion with all in favor. CITY SHOP FINAL PUD. STREAM MARGIN REVIEW CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW. GMOS EXEMPTION AND SPECIAL REVIEW FOR PARKING Jasmine opened the public hearing. Kim made presentation as attached in record. Jack Reid, City Shop: Made presentation as attached in record. The tanks will be housed in partly concrete vaults and landscaped over. from the road about 5 feet than shown below and partly above ground We have moved the island back on original plan. We are doing drainage in conjunction with Environmental Health and Aspen Sanitation. Any water that falls outside of the wall in the compound that isn't in the building will go to a central drain and will be treated. It will have oil and lubricant filters on a sand filter. That water will be disbursed through a drywell system under the ground. And no contaminants will get into the water table at all. Anything that happens inside the building will be contained and treated there and go to Cemetery Sewer. Then using site plar.s Dave ? did a complete presentation of the building, fuel storage area, yard and landscaping. PZM5.4.93 Kim then read into the record a letter from Robert Camp family stating their concerns with this project. (attached in record) Jasmine asked if there was any public comment. she closed the public portion of the hearing. There was none and MOTION Roger: I move to recommend approval of the final PUD development plan and approve a conditional use for a maintenance shop in the public zone and approval of stream margin review and approval of special review for parking and recommend GMQS exemption for an essential public facility for the Aspen City Shop with the following conditions: Those being listed on the Planning Office memo dated May 4, 1993 (attached in record) with the additional sentence on Condition #1-- Specifically in regard to the dedicated ROW- -" It is the determination of the P&Z that current building footprints are approved and dimensional details of the ROW will be worked out between the applicant and the City Engineer". David seconded the motion with all in favor. GARRISH CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT Jasmine opened the public hearing. Kim presented the notification of posting. (attached in record) She then made presentation as attached in record. After discussion-- Jasmine asked if there was any public comment. she closed the public portion of the hearing. There was none and MOTION Roger: I move to approve the Garrish Conditional Use Review for a 600 square foot below grade accessory dwelling unit with the conditions #1 through #11 on the Planning Office memo dated May 4, 1993 with the modification of Conditi0n #2 deleting the first sentence as it exists and replacing it with "Applicant shall agree to enter a sidewalk/curb and gutter agreement prior to building permit. And the second sentence modified to read "The design of the sidewalk area and adjacent ROW space must comply with the pedestrian/bikeway plan guidelines". And the addition of a condition #12--"Roof slopes must be modified so that no snow sheds into the path or entry of the ADU". David seconded the motion with all in favor. "- 2 PZM5.4.93 TEXT AMENDMENT FOR MULTI-FAMILY PARKING REOUIREMENTS Jasmine opened the public hearing. Leslie made presentation as attached in record. David: I am against this text amendment. Because of the impact it would have on other proj ects. I think the language is good the way it is now. Other proj ects I have worked on we have stacked cars. It has the potential for creating too much of a crowding effect on other sites where it is a little tighter. It gives the opportunity not to be as generous with parking. It opens the door for a lot more density onto a site. Jasmine: although there are over that Gondola. residents I agree with David. I think in this particular site, we would like to see underground parking because otherwise going to be cars allover the street. There are cars all street anyway because it is all overflow parking from the It would be nice to have underground parking for the there. I think that with the alley access and the parking being off the alley this is one site that if it were a conditional or reviewable type situation I think this is one in which it would appropriate. If another project comes through and this is allowed to them by right they could have a stack situation that we don't like but we would not have any grounds to reject it. Leslie: But we still have the ability through subdivision to look at circulation and traffic flow in site design. David: On this particular plan it is going to work off an alley. When you start having curb cuts off the street and you have a cul-de-sac and all the cars are stacked in front of the garage spaces, you end up with almost a complete front yard of cars. And it opens the door to make it much more congested by allowing stack spaces. MOTION Bruce: I move to approve the text amendment to Section 24-5-302 A. & C as proposed in the Planning Office memo dated May 4, 1993. Richard seconded the motion. Jasmine: As we see more and more affordable housing projects we are going to be looking at denser projects. And I don't think that we want to encourage stack parking. What typically happens in a community where you have very little land left, you don't see open parcels being developed. The Oblock is a big exception. It was this gigantic parcel with one little house on it. That just doesn't happen anymore. 3 PZM5.4.93 What we are going to be seeing now is not development of these kinds of parcels because they don't exist anymore. You are going to be seeing more and morE> 'Cedevelopment at greater densities than the previous sites whether they are affordable housing or not. That is the way the community is going to have to deal with it. I don't think that we are being very responsible by just saying "Well, yes we will go ahead and do this because the end result down the road for other projects that come in might be such that we might want to require different types of things. I think this is doing a disservice to the community in general. I would like to see it as some kind of review thing on a case-by-case basis. I don't want to see everybody coming in with stack parking and once you put this in, that is what we are going to see. Sara: I would like to see stack parking be a possibility in multi- family. But only a portion of the site have stack parking. I am all for interesting configurations than for more pavement. Perhaps it ought to be a text amendment and then they know it is a possibility. David: I don't want to see the pavement. I can still see that even if the stack parking is approved, you lose the grass. It is all pavement. And not only is it all pavement but it is all filled with cars. And then it is even overfilled with cars because the garages are filled with toys. Roll call vote: Richard, no, Sara, yes, Bruce, yes, Roger, no, David, no, Jasmine,no. Motion defeated. Richard: If we make it reviewable under subdivision is that adding any extra loops and steps to the process? Leslie: As part of the subdivision it would be one of your criteria that you would consider and look at. We could build some language in there providing for the flexibility under subdivision to consider stack parking scenario or a parking garage scenario. MOTION Richard: I move to approve stack parking and multi-family dwellings allowing no more than one stacked unit per dwelling with a separate driveway in units of 3 or more bedrooms. This is just a straight-ahead text amendment here. Bruce seconded the motion. This motion was defeated 3 to 3. 4 PZM5.4.93 .....-- MOTION Bruce: I move to table the recommendation to amendments. this item to date certain of May 16, 1993 with staff to bring back to us revised text Roger seconded the motion with all in favor. TRUSCOTT PLACE FINAL PUD/FINAL PLAT AMENDMENT SPECIAL REVIEW FOR PARKING AND FAR Jasmine opened the public hearing. Leslie made presentation as attached in record. She presented affidavit of noticing. (attached in record) I have 2 new conditions of approval. #1 is "An access easement shall be obtained from the City to increase the amount of parking City Council may grant thE' easement." #2 is "If problems arise between residents and City soil storage area, at the Park's Dept request the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority shall construct a privacy fence or install landscaping to shield City soil storage area from resident housing/parking." Tom Baker, Housing Authority made presentation as attached in record. Jasmine asked for public comment. There was none and she closed the public portion of the hearing. MOTION Sara: I move to approve the amendment for the Truscott Place Final PUD with the conditions as set forth in the Planning Office memo dated May 4, 1993 with the additional conditions #7 and #6 as represented by Leslie. Roger seconded the motion with all in favor. MOUNTAIN VALLEY REZONING AND CODE AMENDMENT Tim Malloy, Planning: Made presentation as attached in record. Jasmine: I have a real problem with this whole thing because one of the things we are trying to do within the City limits is to limit the size of houses. FAR doesn't seem to be working as far as reduction of FAR. We are looking towards smaller houses, not bigger houses. And if they want to be annexed into the City in the hopes of getting bigger houses it just seems that this is working at cross purposes to everything we are trying to do with the Community Plan. Most of those houses are too big for their lots already. That's one 5 PZM5.4.93 of the areas in the community, so to speak, where there are basically no yards. The whole idea that they are going to make these bigger and put in duplexes and more density is really scary to me. Sara: My feeling was that they were trying to have their cake and eat it too. That they would not agree to annexing to the City which would possibly give them greater floor area. So they don't want to be annexed to the City. So therefore "County, please rezone us so we can get"--why should they have it all? Malloy: Our preference would be that they be annexed into the City where the zone district already exists where they can vote on issues that affect them. But barring their co-operation in doing that we recommended the third alternative which was the sliding scale which is the same as the R-15D because it represented the least impacts in terms of potential for larger structures and subdivision. These are legal non-conforming duplexes because the County downzoned them in 1979 which resulted in their quandary. And there was some feeling on the part of the County P&Z that the duplexes offered some affordable housing which did not have to be underwritten by the County or the City or anyone else. And so they were worth preserving in that respect. Jasmine: Yes, but there have been a lot of duplexes that have been constructed since that. A lot of people who live there have told me who have been complaining about that. Sara: I think the County should hear that we take it unfair that they are asking for City FAR in the County with rezoning. Malloy: Is it your feeling that you would prefer to see it annexed? Jasmine: I kind of agrp.e. I know there is just going to be doubling all the problems because we know it is going to happen. As soon as they get annexed they are going to come in here snuffling and sniffling "Why can't I have an 6,000 square foot house on my 6,000 square foot lot?1l It would be appropriate for them to be annexed to the City. And I have to agree with the rest of the Commission I think that we would be unhappy as a P&Z when it happens. But I think it should be done. Roger: I would like to see if they do not get annexed that the County would look more on the alignment of the R-15D because it is right next to the City. It is potentially annexed to the City. The City would like something that is annexable instead of having to do with another non-conformity. Your preference would be #1 that they be annexed. And that the zone district either R15A or B or C be established which would accommodate the specific subdivision. #2 that your preference be that if they are 6 PZM5.4.93 going to remain in the County and be rezoned that it be to an R15B zone district similar to what you have so that should it be annexed there is no confusion when they come into the City. And that your 3rd alternate would be establishing some zone district R15C. My understanding is that is if and when they were annexed. There being no further discussion-- Meeting was adjourned. Time was 6:40 P.M. / Clerk 7