Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19931130 p ~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 30. 1993 SPECIAL MEETING Chairman Bruce Kerr called meeting to order at 4:30 P.M. Tim Mooney, David Brown, Sara Garton, Roger Hunt and Bruce Kerr were present. Jasmine Tygre was excused. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS There were comments regarding the parking meters. Bruce: I am sorry Marti isn't here. Caroler's performance. But I am here. I am missing a Dicken I s STAFF COMMENTS Kim presented the resolution of the Galena Plaza for signature. She then read into the record Resolution #93-7:00. record) (attached in PUBLIC COMMENT There was none. MINUTES NOVEMBER 16. 1993 Sara made a motion to approve minutes of November 30, 1993. Tim seconded the motion with all in favor. BENEDICT/STILLWATER REFERRAL Mary Lackner, Planning made presentation as attached in record. Bruce: Does anybody on the Commission have a problem with the suggested findings of staff and specifically #1, #2, #3 and #5. David: I think the massing and the basic layout of the site is well done. Taken as a microcosm this makes sense. However taken in the context of the overall community I think that it is inconsistent with the Community Plan, character, growth, transportation and open space/ recreation requirements. From the character standpoint the major goal of the Community Plan is to house 60% of the workers in this community in the upper valley area to get a community character where 60% of the workers live up here. And to minimize the environmental impacts of the workers and the people in this community and to minimize the need for single and mass transportation. This is an ideal site to house PZMl1. 30.93 a larger number of people than is currently envisioned in this application. So I think that the ideal zoning which will allow for 30 dwelling units, if those were this 30 or so dwelling units were affordable and I understand the applicant doesn't want to come in under AH but whether it is AH or free market the goal is to have 60% of all new units approved be affordable housfng. , So I think because of all those r;asons it is inconsistent. Sara: I disagree with David. I certainly am in support with the Aspen Area Community Plan. But I think this particular parcel for me has always--I want it to remairl as rural as possible. I think that the kind of developments that you would like to see happen there or even that it is zoned for would be very harmful to the Northstar area. I don't want density in certain areas. I still consider that sort of rural area. It is a very narrow highway. I don't want to see that highway expand or much transportation expanded up there either. Roger: Looking at this parcel and trying to integrate it within the community I would have been much happier if Lot #1 were townhouses or a small apartment building or something like that because it is close to the stillwater Bridge where there is public transportation. I don't have a problem at all with the lower density as you are getting closer to the mountain and farther away from transportation services. I would not wish the entire parcel to be developed as an affordable housing complex. I don't have any problem with these findings. MOTION Sara: I move to adopt the findings #1, #2, #3 and #5 in the Planning Office memorandum dated November 30, 1993 as it pertains to the Benedict/Stillwater Ranch Subdivision, and forward findings #1, #2, #3 and #5 to the County Planning and Zoning Commission. Tim seconded the motion with all in favor except David. Bruce: I am assuming that staff will include David's comments. HOUSING ELEMENT Tape garbled to------- 2 PZMll. 30.93 Bruce: As relates the housing element this is one of those areas where I think perhaps the housing element may be in conflict with the character element. Where all of us want a little less growth and density in certain areas of town and certain areas in the metro area and this applicant seems to have done that but at the same time we are wanting more housing. The fact that the housing element is inconsistent perhaps with the plan or with the character element of the plan is just one of those things we have to live with. It is one of those balancing acts where at some point in time we just have to make a call and say "On this application the character is more important than the housing." Or vice versa according to what our feeling is. David: Community Plan under housing identifies only 16 sites in the metro area that are appropriate for affordable housing. That in itself is an extremely fine balancing act. The character that this plan envisions doesn't call for 60% of all new housing to be locals oriented. That being the overview--does this fit? I would say "No". So in the wording of #4 I think could be enough to ratify what is proposed by staff in the first sentence. And add a second sentence to the--or delete the first clause of the second sentence where it says "Housing action plan recommends 60% affordable and 40% free market units". And this does not comply. MOTION David: I make a motion that we approve the findings #4 to read "The Benedict/Stillwater Ranch application is not consistent with the Housing Action Plan because this site was identified to be used for the dwelling and affordable low density single family or duplex housing. This application is inconsistent with the AACP because the unit count does not meet the 60% affordable and 40% free market unit mix as recommended in the AACP. Discussion on unit and percentage mix. Bruce: So the application is consistent with existing code and existing GMQS competition requirements in what we are finding or what staff has found with #4 is that that is consistent with the existing code but it is not consistent with the AACP which has not been reduced to code. That is all we are doing is making a finding that it is not, if we do make that finding, that it is not consistent with the plan. David: Hearing the discussion I think it does make sense to keep the text as it is and-- 3 PZMll. 30.93 Roger: And you modify your motion? David: Yes. Bruce: To read as the memo itself reads? David: Right. Roger: Then I will second the motion. Everyone then voted in favor of the motion except Bruce. Bruce: Overall I find the development to be acceptable. find that having an affordable unit along with each single home is plenty for me. And I family MOORE PROPERTY REFERRAL SUBDIVISION. PUD AND GMOS Cindy Houben made an introductory presentation. Tim Malloy, Planning Dept: record. Made presentation as attached in Glenn Horn: The land for the regulation track is going to be provided for the school. They have never had a track meet in Aspen because they don't have a regulation track. The land for the baseball field is going to be provided for the school. The schools will build the fields. The land is going to be available to the school. It is an agreement between the Moore family and the school district. As far as the facility for the ski club that is going to be constructed on the site. Bruce: Where does the applicant stand with the School District in terms of all these proposed-- Gideon Kaufman, attorney for applicant: We have worked with the School District for years. We are sOlving a lot of the school's problems and they are very happy and excited about what we are doing in terms of resolving the safety. Those of you who have had the misfortune of being out there at 8:00 in the morning know what a real disaster it is. And this cleans up a lot of the conflict between kids and buses and cars and also provides the school things which they have never had. Bruce: How does CMC fit into that mix? Horn: We must accommodate CMC through some point in the future. Roger: My major problem is transportation which you don't want to talk about at this point. How can you look at the overall thing and try to divorce transportation from it? Without seeing 4 PZMIl. 30.93 something on transportation there is no way I can go forward with anything on this. Discussion on transportation continued to-- Housing. David: I think this is spectacular as conceived--the general concept. My only comments in any sort of negativeness would be if there is 40 free market units assuming on the average of 4 bedrooms each, there is 31 deed restricted units at 3 bedrooms each-- Horn: We used the County standards and the County standards. Kaufman: We have gone beyond that. which isn't even in place. We have also met the AACP Further discussion on numbers-- Then back to transportation-- Roger: to the skiers. area and In this plan what I see is a chairlift. You say it goes top of Thunderbowl. Well, that I s fine for transporting But what good is it as far as an interconnect between this the commercial area of the Highlands? Malloy: They are proposing the Smuggler connection. Then recreation, environment and open space-- COMMENTS: Tim: I am really happy with the project. I am in favor of all the findings. I think that recreation-wise the only thing that is not in there is the David Mace Memorial Ice Rink. I think you have really accomplished a lot. Growth I think is definitely in compliance. The micro community aspect I am really not thrilled about the idea of a 7-11 or any commercial development there. I think that it should be channeled towards the Highlands and hopefully that will work out. Open space, recreation, environmental action I think that all these findings are really in compliance and I am really in favor of it. The scale--the free market portions and the affordable housing portions I think are great. I am in favor of the clustering. I am really excited about the free standing single family 4 to 8,000 square foot lot home sites. And that the Moores are actually going to build them. I think that is fabulous and I think that is the best part about the project. I am very happy that it is not going 5 PZMll.30.93 to be a wall of condos like Centennial. I am in favor of all the findings. The only thing I really hope and I don't know if this is a nightmare and if this project is actually going to get buil--and that it is not going to be bought by Hines and we are going to get levelled off with a swath so that there are more expensive ski-injski-outs. And you take this number of units and try and translate that into the Highlands formula and then we see all this stir-up again. I like the integrity of this. The separateness, the need, the filling in of the community. I hope it gets built the way it is. MOTION Sara: I move to adopt the findings in the Planning Office memo dated November 30, 1993 as it pertains to the Moore family subdivision and forward these findings to the County Planning & Zoning commission. Roger: support without I want to hold off for the transportation. I cannot the motion because we don't have the whole project. the transportation we don't have the whole project. Sara: My motion stands. Tim seconded the motion. Roger: I think it is a real pity to go forward with this motion at this point. As much as I like the project, with this motion- -yes, it lS generally a good project but until we get the transportation aspect of it and until we get some transportation information and basically for some logic not to accommodate a transportation corridor through this property which has in effect to me on everyone of these findings I think this motion is just premature. And I cannot support it. David: I agree with Roger in the sense that none of these issues stand alone. Even though I think this is a 5 star project, I take a very strict interpretation of page 17 of the Community Plan that 60% of gross is local's oriented family housing. And I don't think this is quite there. I like the project., Bruce: Roger, I agree with you. If we were looking at this project to grant a preliminary approval or whatever, within that context I would say "Yes, go back and get the transportation. We won't even look at it until you are done". But considering the context of how we are working as a referral agency and we are only 6 PZM11.30.93 giving our referral comments on these specific areas, I don't have a problem at all with endorsing Planning staff's findings in these areas with the understanding that the whole thing may fall apart if the transportation element does not comply with the plan. I have some very grave concerns about the project and the traffic all spinning onto that one road. I am not as concerned as you are about hooking up some other element. But as to what we are looking at right now I am very happy with this project. As I understand it the transportation element will come back to us for our comments. Tim, I would support your motion as it is but I would like for you to consider putting some kind of caveat in there that all of these findings are somehow contingent on our findings also being positive when we consider the transportation element. Tim: I am willing to amend my motion that there is a caveat that says "Transportation is key and plays an important part on all of these elements that set the findings so far". Roger: I can support that. Sara: I withdraw my motion and-- I move to adopt the findings 1993 as it pertains to the forward this finding after component of this application. in Planning memo dated November 30, Moore property subdivision and to discussion of the transportation Tim seconded the motion. Everyone voted in favor of the motion except Roger and David. The business porti~n of the meeting was then adjourned. Time was 6:10 P.M. Commissioners then continued with a work session regarding 210 Midland/Snyder pond. Deputy Clerk 7