Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19940104 ~,ye; RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING , ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 4. 19 94 vice Chairlady Jasmine Tygre called meeting to order at 4:30 P.M. Answering roll Jasmine Tygre. roll call. call were David Brown, Sara Garton, Roger Hunt and Bruce Kerr and Tim Mooney arrived shortly after COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Bruce: Read into the record Resolution #93-7:00 P.M. acknowledging and commending Jasmine Tygre for her magnanimous perseverance on meeting night of November 16, 1993. STAFF COMMENTS Leslie reminded members of the work session on January 11 with city Council regarding overall transportation issues and Kraut property review scheduled for 5:00 P.M. in council chambers. Leslie also informed members of a joint meeting regarding GMQS revisions with City Council, BOCC and County P&Z on January 18 at 5:00 following regular meeting of P&Z. This will be in council chambers also. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were none. BILLINGS PROPERTY RESIDENTIAL GMOS SUBDIVISION. PUD AND GMOS EXEMPTION Bruce opened the public hearing. Mary Lackner made presentation as attached in record. Sunny Vann, representative for applicant: The conditions for PUD subdivision and GMQS exemption that staff is recommending are acceptable to the applicant with 2 minor clarifications. I am prepared to discuss the project in more detail. Bruce: Mary, you indicated that there was some kind of note that was going to go on the plat about this PUD exemption and the required square footage. Is that one of the conditions? Mary. No, it is not. Bruce: Do we need to add a condition #9 to that affect? Mary: Yes. Jasmine: parcel? How much further re-subdivision is available in this PZMl. 4.94 Mary: They would be able to subdivide one more lot. It might be possible. Jasmine: So there would be a maximum of 5. Sara: will Billings be the developer? Vann: Karla has one unit in each of the 3 duplexes is currently deed restricted. It is my understanding that she has rented at less than the deed restrictions would permit. She wishes to maintain Lots #2, 3, and 4 for her estate. In order for her to keep the property and maintain the property it is necessary for her to create a lot where she is able to sell off for development purposes. After discussion regarding driveway and deed restriction-- Vann presented affidavit of public notice. (attached in record) Bruce: There are 2 letters which have been submitted. One from Tom Isaac and one from Jackie Kasabach stating their objections, and suggestions for this project. (attached in record) Bruce then asked for public comment. Tom Isaac: I live at 935 King Street which is adjacent to this property. I live right behind Lot #1. I have my access to my house is the easement between Lot #1 and #2. This is the only way I can get to my house. So I am concerned. I have got some concerns about how this application affects my house and how it affects the neighborhood. The entire neighborhood is zoned either R-15 or R-15A. My lot is R-15. I have been here for 21 years. The applicant and I have a history of battling on numerous issues over the years. But the main concern is that under this application she will be able to go to 4,000 square feet plus housing there. And in the neighborhood most of the homes are in the neighborhood of 2,000 square feet. And this would change the whole neighborhood. Everybody who lives on King Street works here and it is a real nice community. And I hate to see the invasion of second home owners come in. But the fairness issue is that she be allowed to go to a 9,000 square feet when all the other lots in the neighborhood are 1,5000 and larger. Thirteen years ago when she rezoned this she split her land into 3 1,500 square foot lots which was consistent with the neighborhood. The second problem is with the development site plan. There is no plan of the large footprint. It doesn't show parking, etc. I have ~ 2 PZMl. 4.94 got an electric and a gas line that runs through Lot #1 this afternoon the applicant is unwilling to relocate my line. I leave my trash at the corner of the property. be sure I will be allowed to do that. and as of utilities I want to I would like to ask you if you are willing to give this greater density to one island of R-6 in this neighborhood of R-15. Vann: Karla has indicated that she would relocate the 2 utility easement and access driveway at her expense. The easement runs to the benefit of the entire property. Tom's line predates the original subdivision. The owner of Lot #1 will pay the cost of the relocation of those lines to utility easement at the time of construction. The gas line is more of a question of lack of information than anything else. There is no easement which encumbers Lot #1 with respect to a gas line. We have no knowledge that it is, in fact, in the building envelope. Her position is to the extent that if it is not in the approved easement then it is his line. There is no easement across her property for it and the cost of relocating the gas easement would be his responsibility. She will incur the cost of relocating the electric lines. Stew Moss: I rent from Karla Billings. And I have lived there for the last 7 years. And even though Tommy and Karla have been at odds with one another, this lady is an extraordinary individual. without her help many of us wouldn't be able to live here. She has provided us housing when no one said she had to. She rents her large house to my family for half or a third of what it would cost to rent comparable anywhere else in town. And if she needs to split off this lot and she is entitled to it and Council feels that way, I think she should be given every courtesy and every possible advantage to do this. She has certainly paid more than her dues in helping to make Aspen a place for folks to live. Rick Ebest: I live at 985 King Street. I have lived there for 13 years. Actually I have rented from Karla for over 20 years. I work at the cantina. I have for the last two. She has been excellent on the rent. She charges well, well under the approved rates. And she is an extraordinary lady. I would like to put my 2 cents worth in for her support. John Richardson: I live at 985 King street. And would just like to echo what Rick said. If I didn't live in that unit, I would probably have to move out of town because the rent is so much below what is normally gotten for the unit I am in. ., 3 PZMl. 4.94 Patty Moss: I live at 981 King street. This lady is an extra- ordinary. I think she would spend more time in town if she were able to. Her husband is not well and I think that should be taken into consideration. She has been here since the 50's. She has done a lot for locals. I hope you take that into consideration. Jeffrey Shoaf: I live at 117 Neal Street at the end of King Street a half a block away from this property. And I have got a little bit of concern about the density that we are talking about. I didn't even realize that there was an R-6 parcel there. I thought all of that property over there was R-15 or R-15A which is the same as my property. And the density that they are talking about can be significant. I have got some concerns about that. I share a lot of Tommy Isaac's concerns about the development. I don't doubt that Karla's providing rental to these tenants and that is all good and well. I am still in the dark about how she got R-6 zoning in there when everything else is R-15. Patty: In our house there is a feeling of open space because the park is on one side and there is also a large lawn in the middle. So there is an incredible feeling of open space I think from all of the units--not just ours. And just because of the way the land is laid out, I don't have a concern about density. I have lived there for 6 years. I think because of the way the way the lots are laid out that that is not a concern to me. Lance Luckett: The two points I would like to make are Karla hasn't sold out. She is one of our last remaining owners of property in this town that just didn't decide--she could have taken 1, 2, 3 million dollars for that huge lot recently, sold out, cashed out. She needs the money. The point here is that she wants to sell part of her land in order to keep the rest of the place and pay her taxes and do what she feels she needs to do to keep that property in her family for their inheritance. And she should have the right to do that. She didn't subdivide this property 20 years ago. She is doing it now. And she has provided a lot of us a lot of great places to live. The other point that I would like to make is if she doesn't divide this and sell it--it is a natural driveway that divides the lot. This lot is just sitting there. If she were to have to sell the entire 15,000 square feet, there is potential that a buyer would buy that lot and what scares me is that the buyer of that lot will build a big home which they are starting to creep across the river as you have seen. The large house next to Herron Park and of .course the big huge house up around the corner that is just now being built. If we get a big large house there the first thing we use the deed restriction and where Ricky lives probably build another unit there that they can sell free market and we have just displaced Ricky which of course he gets to stay on the property. '-''-'"'''' 4 PZMl. 4.94 He has been there longer than I have. And I get displaced and that puts me down on Hwy 82. Whereas if you allow her to do what she is trying to do now with whatever she wants to do--put a deed restriction on that spot where her developer who buys the lot then it will increase a deed restricted unit which helps fill the area and provide the housing that this town needs. That Karla is really trying to do what her objective was in the long time which was provide housing for a lot of these people--the worker bees which we all are--and I think those are 2 important points. There being no further comments Bruce closed the public portion of the hearing. Vann: Under item #7. The City than the 90 days we would like prepare all documents which regulations. generally allows 180 days. to make that 180 days for is consistent with the Rather time to City's The other has to do with item #3. We had agreed to enter the sidewalk, curb and gutter and street improvement district and are willing to execute those documents with the city. But I want to clarify that we are not going to be asked to install that sidewalk until such time as the improvements to that street are made. We are prepared to put in the sidewalk and pay our pro-rata share when the time comes. So long as it is on the record that there is not a condition that we are required to put the sidewalk in at the time we pull the building permit on Lot #1, that is acceptable to us. I am going to ask Council that the agreement that we enter into provides for construction of that sidewalk at such time as the street improvements are done. I have some serious doubts as to whether or not the City is gong to be able to obtain a ROW along the rest of the street at any time in the near future. So requiring her to put a sidewalk in today when they have no ability to put the sidewalk in elsewhere along the block I think is an unreasonable request. I am going to ask that that agreement say "At such time as the City is prepared to put sidewalk along the other portion of the block and has the ROW to do so then we are more than happy to go in and clean up ours and put the sidewalk in too". Mary: "The final plat shall include a note specifying the minimum lot area of Lot #1 has been ? regulations because the total lot area of all lots within the subdivision exceeds the minimum lot area 5 PZMl. 4.94 Bruce: Also what about condition #10 regarding the driveway or access easement. Roth: The applicant has agreed to share in the paving the access driveway on a pro-rata cost-sharing basis with all driveway users. Vann agreed to these conditions. We own all the lots with the exception of Tommy's. And Tommy has expressed a concern regarding the quality of driveway and whether or not this new lot is going to have an adverse impact. He has suggested that we pave the driveway. We picked out what was an equitable solution to the extent that if he wants to pave the driveway we would be willing to participate on a pro-rata basis. But if she sells off Lot #1 it has the possibility of being between Tommy, the owner of Lot #1 and Karla. Bruce: Let the record reflect that it is either going to be 3 or 4 depending on what happens with Lot #2 and what they do with that parking place that is stuck into the corner. I think condition #8 covers what we mean by pro rata share. I do think we need to include condition #10. MOTION Roger: I move to recommend approval of the subdivision of the Billings property with conditions #1 through #6 plus #8 as stated on Planning Office memo dated January 4, 1994. Condition #7 in the first sentence to read "180 days" otherwise the same as in the memo. Then with the addition of condition #9 and #10 as read by staff in the record. Tim seconded the motion. Jasmine: I am going to vote against the subdivision. In my opinion the proposed subdivision is not consistent with the Aspen Area Plan 1A in terms of the small infill units or that it is consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. This is the only R-6 parcel which is allowing greater density. This subdivision is allowing still greater density in addition to that in the R-15 area. So I don't really feel that it is consistent. In the original subdivision which we don't really know about the original subdivision in 1980 granted 6 units. I don't think it is all that unreasonable to assume that the reason that the 6 units were allowed and the greater density was allowed was because they were providing affordable housing which even in 1980 I can assure you was a problem though not as great as it is today. 6 PZMl. 4.94 To me to supersede this approval to get greater density to create one 4,000 square foot house plus a smaller house doesn't really seem in keeping with the spirit of the original subdivision or with the subdivision regulations as they now exist. I think we have a real problem in that the applicant for this property is a person who has been in the community a long time and who has done a lot of really good things for the community and so everyone feels that we really should take that into account. But that is really not appropriate. That is not right for us to do. We have to consider this application not based on the personality of the person who has applied for this. If somebody we didn't like was applying for this kind of subdivision, I wonder whether the results would be the same. I feel really uncomfortable about it. Sara: Unless the zoning were changed the applicant is allowed what she is applying for. Roll call vote: Tim, yes, David, yes, Sara, yes, Roger, yes, Jasmine, no, Bruce, no. Bruce: I voted "no" for the same reason that Jasmine did. Motion passed 4 to 2. MOTION Roger: I move to include the PUD recommendation for approval within my prior motion. Tim accepted this for his second. Everyone then voted in favor of the motion except Jasmine and Bruce. Motion passed 4 to 2. GMOS EXEMPTION MOTION Roger: I move to recommend approval of GMQS Exemption and the housing mitigation package of the Billings proposal. Tim seconded the motion. Roger: On the GMQS motion we have to find that the score was over threshold basically and there being no other application then our findings are in agreement with the Planning Office's findings for 7 PZMl. 4 . 94 the record. I will include any applicable conditions out of the 10 conditions already considered for the subdivision are included in this motion. Tim accepted this for his second of the motion. Everyone then voted in favor of the motion. Bruce: I voted in favor of this portion of the application because the PUD and subdivision are already a done deal and I don't want to be on the record as being against employee housing. Jasmine agreed. ~ MOTION Sara: Taking into consideration that because there is no other application for GMQS this year finding an agreement with the staff concerning the scoring of threshold I move to accept the Planning Office scoring on this portion of the application. And also include all conditions discussed regarding GMQS should be included in this motion. David seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Tim, yes, David, yes, Sara, yes, Roger, yes, Jasmine, abstain, Bruce, no. Four in favor, one abstention and one "no" vote. Bruce then closed the public hearing. BENEDICT/STILLWATER REFERRALS Leslie made presentation as attached in record. After discussion: MOTION Roger: I move to adopt city staff referral comments to be adopted as City of Aspen referrals about the Benedict/stillwater Subdivision and support that the referrals be forwarded to the County Planning & Zoning commission. Tim seconded the motion with all in favor. 8 PZMl. 4.94 MOORE REFERRAL Leslie made presentation as attached in record. Tim Malloy, Planning: Made presentation. (attached in record) A couple of solutions have been discussed as to how to alleviate the congestion at Castle/Maroon Creek interchange and Hwy 82. Creating a new intersection with Maroon Creek road and Hwy 82 down by the golf course. The applicant has offered to dedicate the ROW necessary for this. (demonstrated on map) What is being discussed is the possibility of taking Maroon Creek Rd straight across the Moore open space and out to a new intersection across from the golf course entry drive. It is not the Moore open space. It is land owned by the Moore family adjacent to the Moore open space. One other option being discussed to help alleviate traffic at this location that is to re-route across the eastern edge of the Marolt property and out to Hwy 82 right at the intersection of the -- basically to have it come out across the edge of the Marolt open space and come out at cemetery Lane. Separate Castle Creek from Maroon Creek and have the hospital traffic come in via this new intersection across from Cemetery Lane. Roger: I am really upset with the impact on Hwy 82 no matter how we deal with it. with both the Highlands and this project. We are not doing anything to remove traffic from the entry into town at this point. The question I have -- is the Moore property in any way contiguous with the Water Plant property? 7: Yes, it is. Roger: Is there any acceptable gradewise way of getting a fairly low impact transit system to connect Highlands through the Moore property to the Power Plant, picking up the employee housing hospital and then cutting across the Marolt property either over the existing pedestrian bridge or some other maybe a separate bridge to get completely separate transit system. To me that would be the only way of reducing traffic impact on Hwy 82. Diane Moore, Planning: I don't know what Hines has thought of with relationship to the Highlands project. Bud Eyler, County Engineer: Using drawings made presentation. One of the things that has been discussed as a possibility to make connection from Castle Creek to Cemetery Lane the city owns all this property out here. This was the Thomas property. This was 9 PZM1.4.94 the Marolt property. On the Thomas Property there was a parcel bought for transportation. It generally follows the old railroad alignment. Nothing that you could probably do would follow that alignment that would work well other than something close to the entry to Aspen on Main street extended. Some sort of connection from Castle Creek over to Cemetery Lane that would end--that would eliminate the vast majority of traffic that come down through here, makes this turn and goes into town. First I would shorten the trip from Castle Creek into town and then it would eliminate almost 5,000 cars out of this intersection. Right now Castle Creek runs about 5,000 cars a day. Maroon Creek runs around 4,000 cars a day. Maroon Creek will be up to almost 5,000 cars a day if you take the Highlands development and this development plus some of the other small things that are being proposed up Maroon Creek. That would go a long way towards sOlving the capacity problem at this intersection. It is never going to work well in a 2-lane configuration. You have got too many cars on Hwy 82 to try to go through this bottleneck at the present time. Roger: The only problem with the alternate solution to cemetery Lane is all you have done is instead of 10,000 in one spot you have moved it to 5,000 now. What does that 5,000 do to the Cemetery Lane intersection? How much are we getting in there? And so are we just transferring our problems? Sara: I agree with Roger in that in referrals we sort of buy into this $350,000 comes from the Moores and the rest comes from the Hines development that that is what is going to happen. We are going to get an improved intersection. And that isn't what this commission wants to see. How can we even buy into the referrals when the state implementation plan says we can't increase PM 10? Malloy: Kathleen Craiger has included in her report an analysis of the anticipated increase in vehicle miles traveled which is what we believe to be the largest contributor to PM10--the wheels of vehicles grinding up sand. It is her position that the improvements made to the school campus circulation and the improvements made on Hwy 82 will balance it out. What we are really talking about is the reduction in exhaust fumes as a result of idling vehicles vs cars traveling on the roads and churning up sand. Jasmine: We are talking about a close enough area that if you are in good enough health you could certainly walk it fairly easily. We are not talking about creating 2,000 miles of a transit system. We are talking about a fairly short link. And if you don't have this link that bypasses all of those little things that cut out 10 PZMl. 4.94 ","". onto Hwy 82 you are going to have worse pollution than ever. The timing now with these 2 different proposals coming in it is a wonderful opportunity. We see what happens with sidewalk districts and things like that where you have got different entities that are developing at different times where it is difficult to get the sidewalk built. Here you have 2 major projects coming on line at about the same time. And you are not going to get a corridor? That just seems reallv poor planning to me to not do it. Malloy: Well, it is really poor planning if there is a viable corridor that will work and you don't do it. Jasmine: That is what we are all saying. It would be such a wonderful thing if we could find one that I think that should be a priority--to find one and dedicate it. Roger: First we have to look! what I want getting done here. That is the problem. And that is Look! Jasmine: I agree with Roger and Sara here. absolutely essential. David: Have you talked to the schools about doing some kind of trade? You are giving them some playing fields and in exchange to cut down on trips generated by the whole campus to not allow students to drive. I think it is Horn: We have talked to the schools extensively about developing an educational program and working with them to help to encourage people to have their children ride the school bus--it is a touchy issue with the school. The Moore family is absolutely committed to making improvements at the school campus. And if any of you have been over there in the morning to see what is going on it is not just a bad situation. It is a life threatening situation particularly in the winter. One student has already been killed on that campus because of the way the traffic works. Malloy: I really don't think that tonight is the right forum for that. While I am very pleased seeing what is coming out of the design group with respect to that circulation, I don't think the facts the numbers on the roadway or I really don't consider it to be a transportation mitigation measure accepting that. I do see some advantages to better circulation and idling vehicles. 11 PZMl. 4.94 ,-. Horn: I take a different view than Tim on it. When we start talking about community and the Aspen Area Community plan and the sense of the community we are trying to sponsor, I think that the way vehicles interact and relate to students at the campus it is right at the heart of the scenario of the community. I just think it is a huge, huge commitment on the part of the Moore family to address this problem. I think it is right at what you are talking about in the Aspen Area Community Plan. And that is why I am taken aback at the Planning Office comments about transportation because we know that there are problems with the intersection of Hwy 82 and we have done the best we can to address those issues the best that one developer can do to address those issues. And we thought that we were offsetting those problems by the vast improvement that we are doing. Close to 1/4 million dollars in transportation improvements at the school. And I think you cannot underestimate what is being done there. Sara: The Moore plan is terrific if there wasn't a Hwy 82 or that intersection. But we as planners for the community would be negligent to know that we are increasing traffic coming onto Hwy 82. And that is what we are addressing. Roger: I think an alternative corridor we could see as a method of really attacking the problem of the intersection of Maroon Creek and Hwy 82. No one has ever taken an area map and looked at to see is that route logical, practical--could it be done? But can we get something like that going on at least a preliminary planning basis and staff encouraging them to look in this direction. And dedicating a possible corridor through that property. Bruce: As this applicant on this piece of property they could draw that. They could draw a line that says "Yes we want a mass transit corridor to go and connect right into Main Street". But there is no way that we would have any way to hold their feet to the fire. They could draw lines all day long. Malloy: One of the things this project does is it provides 100% mitigation of affordable housing very near town, very near the hospital, very near the schools. I think this has a significant value in terms of transportation. The affordable housing aspect of this plan is a significant step in the right direction even in terms of transportation. David: And if there are teachers that are walking to the school that are no longer commuting from Centennial or are no longer commuting from down valley, there is a potential decrease at this intersection. I am inclined to ask the question of staff if there was a way to have a zero peak hour increase from this project would that be enough to get staff to recommend that this is consistent ~,,, 12 PZMl. 4.94 '.........-- with the AACP? And that could be a combination of cutting students driving or some sort of way to identify which housing opportunities might go to teachers or a way to put a gate at peak across the access street? Or even decreasing through deed restrictions how many cars could be stored on any site or owned by the owners of any of the given houses. Bruce: Is there language that can be added into that #6 page 22 to soften it in a sense that we say "Yes, the plan as presently presented is not consistent but that we understand and the applicant understands that there is some tweaking that needs to go on and that at this meeting tonight we discussed a variety of things including Roger's straight-shot going into town. And we talked about another intersection on Hwy 82 coming across the Marolt property somewhere there by the Golf Course. We talked about another road going through the Marolt/Thomas. We talked about a lot of different options. And we encouraged the applicant to continue to pursue those so that the language as it is now just seems to blunt and cold and forbidding. It says it is not consistent. I can understand how Glenn could feel bad about that. Everybody in this room--everybody in town understands that we have got these traffic problems that we have got to resolve. But lets don't kill this project by saying "It is absolutely not consistent. There is not way it will ever be". Let's soften the language up to say "Yes, it is not consistent as presently proposed but we have talked about alternatives that may work". They may not work. But encourage the applicant to continue to work on those and pursue them. Tim: And they should be done in a masterplanning type of format. MOTION Sara: I move to adopt the findings #1 through #5 in the Planning memo dated January 4, 1994 as it pertains to the Moore family subdivision and forward the findings #1 through #5 to the County Planning & Zoning Commission. Roger seconded the motion with all in favor. MOTION Tim: I move to adopt the findings on Planning memo dated January 4, 1994 specifically #6. But I would like to change some of the wording to say that "We find it to be not perfectly consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan but we have discussed a number of alternative ideas and we think that time and money from the public and private sector should be allocated to pursue these ideas in the form of a master transportation plan". .........."." 13 PZMl. 4.94 Roger: I second the motion. Diane: Could we work on the language and then show it to you for #6. Tim: I withdraw my motion and make a motion that at the work session coming up on the Superblock direct the Planning Office to come up with language in the spirit of the motion that I have just withdrawn so that we can approve it formally. Roger: I withdraw my second and second Tim's second motion. Everyone voted in favor of this second motion. MOTION Tim: I make a motion to accept the referral comments from the city of Aspen about the Moore family Subdivision and forward these referrals to the County Planning & Zoning commission. Bruce: These are the general comments unrelated to the AACP. Roger seconded the motion with all in favor. Sara: Planning Department, may we PLEASE have a map of the City and a map of the valley hanging in this room which would mean so much more to us than napkins. Meeting was then adjourned. Time 14