Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19940215 f ~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 15. 1994 vice Chairlady Jasmine Tygre called meeting to order at 5:05 P.M. Answering roll call were Tim Mooney, Sara Garton, Roger Hunt, and Jasmine Tygre. Bruce Kerr and David Brown were excused. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS There were none. STAFF COMMENTS There were none. MINUTES FEBRUARY 1. 1994 Roger made a motion to adopt minutes of February 1, 1994. Tim seconded the motion with all in favor. PUBLIC COMMENTS Jon Busch: Just a reminder that on the Smuggler side of town there is a major deficit of active open space. And as that side of town builds to ever greater density it becomes all the more important that that one and only large open parcel is secured. BELLOCK CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT AND STREAM MARGIN REVIEW Jasmine opened the public hearing. Mary Lackner, Planning: Made presentation as attached in record. Stan Mathis and Rob? representing applicant: Rob: would which The issues we have would be staff recommendation 5b. like to further define pedestrian walkway space as that is in the public ROW. We area Chuck Roth, Engineering: That is fine. Rob: Also a fisherman's easement is not required. However we do not have any problem with a 5 foot easement. The client has no objection to that. Mathis: We have a problem with our subdivision covenants. Jasmine: This is one of the things that the P&Z really have much to say about one way or the other. This has to with the approval of the City Attorney and homeowners. doesn't be done We can PZM2.15.94 either grant or not grant the approval subject to the necessary requirements of covenants. After discussion: Jasmine: The wording- - "The applicant shall record the amended homeowner covenants for Lot #6 of the subdivision". Mary and Stan both agreed with this wording. Roger: In the past when it comes to covenants, the City has not enforced homeowner covenants--were not required to. It is up to the applicant to act in accordance with the covenants and it is up to the homeowners to enforce those covenants. It is not up to the City. So I don't really see any change here other than it is apparently the City's attitude--"Well we don't want to go through the motions of approving this without knowing it can be built. Otherwise it is just cash-in-lieu". Jasmine then asked for public comment. Marvin Jordon: A licensed realtor and the owner of Lot #2 just down the street. You might ask if the waiver you are speaking of is the one from Fisher. Mr. Fisher about 45 minutes ago asked me to withdraw his waiver. ""'.., , Part of the problem that we are concerned with is the question of definitions and intent of caretaker units vs accessory dwelling units vs affordable dwelling units. The covenants of the subdivision were amended by the required 75% owners of the units to stiffen the single family covenants of the subdivision. So there is a very definite history on the part of the owners over the years of Red Butte to keep that very strictly single family residence. In the amendment to the covenants which Penny has been circulating and she points out hasn't been signed by enough people yet. She is going to need 8 signatures for the covenants to be amended. Part of what was asked in here and referred to was (reading) "For the purposes of compliance with Aspen City Ord #1 a caretaker unit (accessory dwelling unit) may be built on each lot". There are several of us, myself and Mr. Roland Fisher owner of Lot #3 who faxed Penney today his waiver who would not be that opposed to a caretaker unit. We would have a little trouble defining it. It might be one of these things like--we know it when we see it only we can't really define it. What we are thinking about is the deal where OK I have got a guy living in a caretaker unit here and his or her principle job is t~e 2 PZM2.15.94 repair, maintanence, etc., etc. of the principle portion of the residence and not what is really a rentable outable unit on a 6 month rental restricture or whatever for somebody who can go be an employee over at City Market. That is not what we had intended down on Butte subdivision. And there is apparently enough of us who still feel that way that we don't think that a legal affordable dwelling unit can or should be built down there. And I suspect that if the parties involved can come together and work out a deal where we can define perhaps for this one Lot #6 a true caretaker unit as opposed to a rentable outable affordable dwelling unit as a way of simply avoiding a few thousand dollars worth of cash-in-lieu then maybe we can get together. Otherwise there is enough votes to block it. And so because of that and because of John Worcester's position I have to ask that the Commission do not pass even a condition of approval today. Marty Keller: We are in Lot #5 which is next door to the lot that is in question here. And I think if you will take the time to read the letters I have submitted most of what I would have to say is encompassed in the letters. There are just a couple of things I would like to bring out. There was an assumption from the Ord #1, 1990 by a certain subdivision R-15b that happens to be on the east side of town and thereason for the exemption was that there were people out there when discussing Ord #1 they did not want to be included and the Council and P&Z backed down at that time or gave in to those people and allowed them to be exempt from the Ord #1. Now if we relinquish or amend the covenants on the Red Butte Subdivision we would then be accepting the City of Aspen covenants as I understand it. And under Ord #1 this would also allow a setback on the property line of only 3 feet setback where our original covenants are at 15 feet. And I am wondering if anybody in Red Butte Subdivision would like that. There are other things too numberous to mention here. Jasmine asked if there was further comment from the public. There was none. She then read into the record a letter from Marty Keller stating further concerns and objections to this application. (attached in record) She then read into the record a let ter stating his objections to the application. from Roland B. Fisher (attached in record) 3 PZM2.15.94 There were no further letters or comments and Jasmine then closed the public portion of the hearing. Roger: I have wording for condition #ll--"Prior to issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall either record the amended homeowner covenants for Lot #6 Red Butte Subdivision which permit the accessory dwelling unit or shall pay cash-in-lieu". Penny Evans: Include the waiver is given for this requirement. It cannot be subdivision. word I1waiverH. By lot it still has a special little the way whatever to comply with waiver for this Roger: Change amendment or Subdivision" . #11 to read--"The applicant shall either record the waiver of homeowner for Lot #6 Red Buitte Sara: To avoid what happened with the Park Avenue site could we have an official form the Building Dept presents for the initial earth moving and excavation? I am asking that somebody be there checking up. An ounce of prevention-- Leslie: Condition #6 talks about mumble Sara: Well we had all those on the other site too. I thought we were going to have that now with any Stream Margin or 8040. "'-.>. Leslie: No. I think what I told you is that we were working on better inspections of existing proj ects to make sure that our conditions of approval be complied with instead of waiting until the final inspection. Jasmine: The feeling I am getting from Tim and Sara and I have to say I go along with entirely is that we would like to see that whole condition made stronger so that we can prevent these things from happening rather than go back in and correct them. And because these are sensitive areas it seems to me that we have to make sure that we have some kind of mechanism to check before these things are damaged. This would be far preferable. I think we would like to see this kind of thing on any 8040 or Stream Margin because they are sensitive areas. I think it should be standard language. It is a very good condition to have as a regular part of the construction of ADDs. I think as a part of 8040 and Stream Margin we need to have this as an automatic inclusion. Mary: Prior to earth moving that the erosion fencing shall be in place and checked by the Zoning Enforcement Officer who shall ensure erosion steel grids are in place prior to earth moving. 4 PZM2.15.94 Jasmine: So then it is "The Zoning Officer shall ensure that erosion fencing and geo grids are in place prior to any earth moving activity". Roger: And "The site shall be periodically checked by the Zoning Enforcement Officer". MOTION Roger: I move to approve conditional use for 475 square foot attached accessory dwelling unit and approval of Stream Margin Review for the Bellock residence located at 1420 Red Butte Drive also referred to as Lot #6 Red Butte Subdivision with conditions on Planning Office memo dated February 15, 1994 as amended. Specifically #1 through #5a as stated. #5b modified to read "The applicant shall designate parking spaces, pedestrian walkway space in public ROW, Fisherman's easement and so on. And #5c, d and e as in the memo. Then condition #6 will be modified to read "The Zoning Enforcement Officer shall ensure that erosion fencing and Geo grids are in place prior to any earth moving activity". #7 through #10 as in the memo. Then #11 modified to read "Prior to the issuance of any building permit the applicant shall either record the amendments or waiver of homeowner covenants for Lot #6 Red Butte Subdivisi8n which permit the accessory dwelling unit or shall pay cash-in- lieu" . #12 is as in the memo. #13 as in the memo with the addition of a final sentence "The Zoning Enforcement Officer shall periodically inspect the site to ensure compliance all of the conditions" . Tim seconded the motion with all in favor. WILLIAMS RANCH CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION FOR ANNEXATION. AH REZONING. PUD. SUBDIVISION. GMOS EXEMPTION. SPECIAL REVIEW AND 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW Diane Moore, Planning, made presentation as attached in record. Mary Lackner, Planning: Made presentation as attached in record. One of the main concerns the neighborhood does have with this project is the traffic impact. The potential increase is estimated to be between 300 and 450 vehicles per day going through the neighborhood. Tom Stevens, developer for applicant: The overriding goal of this project is to provide inventory that will keep people from moving down valley or better yet bring people back up the valley. The 5 PZM2.15.94 only thing that is going to do that is family units. We are at 4 and 1/4 units per acre. This is the lowest AH project that has come through. The densities for affordable projects range from 5 and 1/2 up to the low 30s per acre. We are not playing the typical density game. with 54 hoping to walk out of here with 30. the goal we want we really don't feel like density and economically we can't go lower. We are not coming in In order to maintain we can go higher in One of the things that this project is set up to do is not go to the tax payers for a dime. This is private sector. We are not asking for loans. We are not asking for anything. It is a self supporting project--no subsidies being requested. Well over half of the people who have expressed interest in this project live down valley. RFTA runs within 1,000 feet as you come down Brown Lane. It is an easy walk into town. There are trails already. You can't get any close~ with your car. The proposed program here is 54 units and 16 of those are free markets. We are proposing to build all of the deed restricted inventory--category 2 all the way up through resident occupied. We see too many headaches turning 38 people loose on doing what they want on site. We turned 4 people loose on Owl Creek and it did not work well. We don't want to turn 38 loose here. We have an opportunity to, when we contract this project, contract for 38 units instead of 1 at a time. That allows us an enormous efficencies in scale and brings our construction costs way down. In discussion with the Housing Office and Planning and with potential buyers one bedroom and 3 bedroom units just keep hammering at us. What we would like to propose then would be 4 one-bedroom units, 8 two-bedroom units and 4 3-bedroom units. That gets us within the 60/40 ratio that is required and spreads the inventory out a little bit more. We also have a lot of people that are asking for 2-bedroom units which traditionally has not been the high demand sale unit. In this case it seems to be. So we would like to keep that in. The sizes of these units: Single family homes are about 2,000 square feet measured net liveable as defined by the Housing Authority which means it is about a 2,200 square foot home. That is a 4-bedroom home and along with that is a 2-car garage. Duplexes are 1,600 net liveable, about 1,800 square feet gross with a 1-car garage attached and enclosed--not in that square footage but in addition to that square footage. They include 4 bedrooms. 6 PZM2.15.94 There is also room on the driveway for another car or 2. The townhome units that is 1-bedroom and 1 bath--650 square feet- -2 bedroom, 1 bath 900 square feet--3 bedroom, 2 bath 1,100 square feet. What is important here is that all of these are in excess of the minimum requirements. In terms of sales--prices--I have to back that up and qualify it by saying that we are at a conceptual level. These are our targets. But until we get done, a lot of things can change. One bedroom Cat 2--$69,000. Two-bedroom Cat 2--$79,000. Three- bedroom Cat 2--$88,500. Duplex Cat 4--$193,500. Duplexes ROs and single family ROs at market rates. We are still trying to get the numbers for the Cat 2s and the Cat 4s even lower than that. This is a private development which means essentially that we can pick the buyers. We are going to select the first 18 for the project. The next 10 will be people who have contributed time to the project. The last 10 go to a lottery. There is one requirement on this project. And that is 10-year residency. '""., Architecture: We are shooting for old Aspen. So what is old Aspen? Old Aspen is victorian form but not gingerbread. Old Aspen really is a derrivitive of eastern architecture being brought here and used in it's most original form for miner's cabins. It is a fairly clean form with steep pitched roofs, not a lot of uniform mass on the front of the building. Typically the mass was confined to the one room wide and possibly two rooms long rather than just the entire side of the house being one wall. It is one thing to produce units that are affordable. If you produce them so cheaply that the monthly operating costs exceed your mortgage--what we don't want to have happen is 3 to 400 dollar a month operating costs on thse units. The cheapest thing to do is put in electric base-board heat. But that is the most expensive to operate on a monthly basis. The most expensive is radiant in floor heat. It is also the most efficient and cheapest to operate. That is what we propose to do. We are proposing corrugated steel for the roofs. It really is the historic building material around here. It rusts very rapidly and after it rusts it is beautiful. In terms of the siding--board and bat ten and lap siding. Wood windows - -not metal. Double hung windows--not sliders. #1 issue--access. Spruce Street--right now we have got existing 20 foot easement that accesses this property on the northwestern most corner. That access is not wide enough to bring in a major 7 PZM2.15.94 road. It is only wide enough to bring In a driveway. We don!t have the ability to put in a major road there. We don't want to put any additional traffic on Spruce Street that we don't have to. Brown Lane: There is an existing 60 foot ROW easement that comes up through Centennial and accesses our property line. The only access we are proposing on Brown Lane is for the townhome units. The primary access to the proj ect, what we are proposing in negotiations with the County, is coming off Park Circle. There are 2 different ways of doing this. One is to come up through Molly Gibson which is a 2 to 1 man-made slope and the mine dump is there. But cut a new road in there and in return develop Molly Gibson into an active park. The other solution is come up access across the Smuggler solutions, which we will work parcel at the same spot. the existing Smuggler Mountain Road mine property. Either of those out thorugh the County, access this The reason we are resisting Smuggler is the grade is 14%. Some of the interior radiuses are 18%. The radiuses on the first curve and second curve are half of what the County road access standard needs to be. The visual impacts and environmental impacts to try to bring Smuggler Mtn Rd up to County standard would be enormous. " Easements: In doing the survey on this project we discovered that Spruce Street--not in it's entirety but a substantial portion along our northern boundary is on this property. And no easement exists. The ditch that comes through there. Right now there is not an easement with Salvation Ditch. We propose to grant one. We also propose along that ditch to grant pedestrian trail easement. That is part of the Trails Masterplan. Pedestrian easements within the parcel--all roads are contained within ROWand common ownership with the homeowners association of the project. Within that ROW there will be sidewalks. The trail system primarily along the ditch and which will be more of a passive trail--dirt. Then concrete sidewalks along the road going back to the pedestrian plan trying to get everybody down through the parcel to the trail system and to RFTA. EPA issues: It has been tested by EPA. It is clean. There are no EPA issues on this site. EPA has said this site is clean. Geology: There is an area on that site bench that we looked at today where the single family detached homes are. That is essentially the fill area from Centennial. We have had CTL Thompson take a look at that area. That fill ranges in depth from 8 PZM2.15.94 the highest point 0 to the lowest point which is about where the road is at 9 feet. Rather than excavate all of that off we can put just a conventional crawl space foundation on the homes where it is 0 and do basements on the homes where it is 9 feet. What we need to do is get down to undisturbed soil for foundations. So a basement accomplishes that on the deepest portion and crawl space accomplishes that where it is O. Jasmine then asked for comment from the public. Hal Clifford: I live at Centennial. I am very aware that this project is going to be developed. I have been a local for a long time and have employee housing. I would like to point out that the applicant has packed these meetings. They have done mailings saying that "If you want to be considered favorably you need to come to these meetings". It is my understanding that stephan will gain some ownership of the Smuggler Mine if this property is developed and Stephen may not be a developer but in the years that I have known him I do think he is a miner and I would be interested in knowing down the road what that implies. We have hundreds of cars parked at Centennial and Centennial will be closer to the RFTA bus stop than this will be. And every morning I watch most of those cars leave and then I watch most of them come back at night. To simply assume that people are going to take the bus is wishful thinking. We have EPA breathing down the City's neck regarding air pollution violations already. And adding hundreds of car trips--We also have a lot of resident occupied units in this project. I am not clear as to what the definition of resident occupied unit is. I question approving a project that we don't know what they are. I am very pleased to hear that staff is interested in this idea. It is a dense neighborhood. There are a lot of people living there. I live in Centennial. I am a beneficiary of employee housing. I am very aware of that. That doesn't mean, however, that I and my dogs and my kids don't also appreciate some open space. And whatever can be done to protect this flat middle area and I appreciate the applicant's time to protect those trees on the northwest side and whatever trees that are out there. That is great. ?: I have lived here about 28 years. And right now I am moving down valley. I would love to move back up here and this seems like my last chance to do so and have a family here and get off Hwy 82. Fred ?: I live at Centennial also. It seems to me the staff has 9 PZM2.15.94 -".," done a lot of research and I think overall the project seems like it is good. It is going to help a lot of people. But on the same note an open space buffer in that meadow would be a good idea and beneficial to folks who buy into this project and all the residents who are already in the neighborhood. It is a dense neighborhood. I think 70% of town actually live in this neighborhood overestimate the importance of buffers. the people who work in already. You can! t Diane Rutgers: I live at the corner of Park Avenue and Third Street. And having been there for 18 years I can tell you that another 300 to 400 cars per day will not only impact the way we all have lived in the Williams Addition. The roads that go up to this property of the proposed project I am questioning whether or not those roads are stable enough to handle this impact. Traffic has got to be the number one issue. Vickie Brooks: I have lived in the valley over 20 years. I am going to speak in favor of the project. I find that many people feel that most of the workers should live down valley and commute. And there are very few of us that feel that people who have lived here a long time should be able to stay here and work and not commute. I think you should really reiterate what Tom said and look at the problems we are having with traffic on Hwy 82. That means when somebody lives down valley and works here. This is one of the few projects that is addressing the local's needs first and then be a free market housing second. This is very unusual. This is one of the best projects to come along in a long time. Jay Parker: I gotta leave and do some County road work. I have lived here for over 30 years and have spent 20 years on the volunteer fire department. I drive the road every morning in rush hour and sometimes in the middle of the day. I have seen my share of cars going up and down the road. By getting me and some of the people off the highway and closer to our work would be a great benefit. I also work for Mr. Albouy and I hope to have a shot at that. I have walked that project and it looks great. The mine is on the National Historic Register and I think knowing Mr. Albouy that will probably stay like that forever. It is a national historic treasure for this community. It is what made this community--the ranchers and the miners. Ron Bracken: I am a local here in Aspen. I have worked and lived here for 10 and 1/2 years now. My lease is up in April. 99% chance I will be moving down valley. I do spend my money up here, do all my shopping. I do my community service up here for the town. I don't feel that it is I who should be the one moving down 10 PZM2.15.94 to Basalt while a second home owner comes up here and takes my place because I can't afford the rents. Stephen is providing an opportunity for some of us to maybe continue to live up here. I am very much for the proj ect. I think all the little things everybody is worried about could be worked out. I am really for seeing this go through. ?: I have lived here for 20 years and again the locals every year are just getting pushed out and pushed out for numerous reasons. This is a fantastic opportunity for us who have lived here this long who don't make $100 or $200 thousand a year to live here. Kim ?: I was born here. My husband was born here. His Grandmother was born here. And if we don't get a house at this project we are going to be moving down valley. You don't have your classic developer here. You have a regular person who wants to do the project. ?: I am a resident of Centennial. I have rented a studio. I have rented a 1 bedroom, rented a 2 bedroom and now I am in the process of buying a 3 bedroom unit. The response that we had with the 2 bedroom was unbelievable. It really brings home how much need there is in this community and is again reflected in this meeting. I have a 2 year old daughter who is lacking in kids her age in the neighborhood. And I look to this as a community thing that will return some of the workers to this valley. I think it is a wonderful thing to try and bring some of thepeople back who have been forced out of this community and down valley. Tony Rutgers: I live right at the corner of Park and Spruce. And it is true that it is a sad thing that there are a ton of kids that live there but there is no place for them to play. They all go to that little park down there by "No Problem Bridge". Have you ever seen that park on a Saturday? That is one of the concerns I would like to see this Commission respond to with this development. We need some space for the kids. Flat space. ?: I am in favor of affordable housing. But I also realize that sitting here we have created kind of an artificial market where a lot of people think that housing is going to be provided for them. And we have a whole new market of people that is growth as far as looking for affordable housing. And I am very concerned about the growth. I think that this project addresses a lot of my concerns and paid attention to the things that we asked them do to change the configuration drastically--the numbers drastically--the phylosophy drastically. They have provided things that I particularly asked them for. The style of the house, the style of the lots, the idea of the lifestyle there--small lots with small houses. I particularly appreciate that. 11 PZM2.15.94 I think that this has to be part of a masterplan as far as I am concerned. I was really concerned about what else is up there would be the Smuggler Mine, would be Molly Gibson Mine. I would like to see where the park Molly Gibson is going to go. I want to know what is going to happen with the property and the mines. Is this going to be Stephan's mine? Is it going to be a mine? Or is it going to be a phased development? ?: It can't be because of the soil situations we have. We are certainly willing to enter into a covenant that says the part that doesn't get annexed stays as the Smuggler Mine. You are more than welcome to have a copy of our County application that deals with the mine masterplan. Tim: I think the whole site should be rezoned and annexed. I am in favor of that. I basically don't want to re-visit this. If we make a decision about this development I want to make a comprehensive long-range decision. I want to see it planned and I want to see it executed. The EPA has obviously a drastic concern. And I think we can't go much further until we hear exactly what the EPA recommendations are. In light of all the things I think are so favorable about this I am willing to say that this isn't one of these projects that is going to impact the community more severely than it is going to enhance the community. And I particularly feel if the type of housing is very timely and very important that we build that housing for you people. For me. Jasmine: Me too. Sara: My concern when we first looked at this was traffic. I think the road improvements have to be good. Part of our consideration is what are the impacts of the public facilities. I would like you to consider purchasing another RFTA bus instead of an outright contribution to RFTA. We need a bus every 10 minutes at certain times of the day. I agree that with the locals they have cars. And if we have more frequent buses that would be helpful and if the roads are improved they would walk more. But I don't think we can take away the parking spaces. I agree with staff's recommendation and I know where the extra cars will go--into the other neighborhood. Open space: I think that park is very important. I don't know what will happen along Salvation Ditch. I like that you are planting Cottonwoods and leaving the Aspenwoods there. Molly Gibson Park is really needed. There is getting to be more and more children in that neighborhood. 12 PZM2.15.94 ........- Phil, I want you--any buildings that are built on fill--you should have that tested for Radon before you put a building on it. Roger: I don't have much more to add. I agree with what Tim and Sara have said. I agree with them totally. I like this project very much. My one real concern is the up valley access. I have grave concerns about the cut that is going to be required along there. At the very least I think we need to know what it is going to end up looking like. I would really prefer access through the Smuggler Mountain Road because I think that could be done with less impact. In reality I don't think that is going to happen. So at the least we need to see what is going to happen there. We need road profiles and elevations of this 20 foot cut and 8 foot fill and let people know what it is going to look like. The one other area I have concern is where you have the intersection, there is afair slope to deal with there. It would be nice to know just how extensive you are going to have to move earth to get that to a usable grade and intersection area. Other than that I really like the project. Jasmine: I would just like to echo the members of the Commission. I have to say that I agree with Sara's point about the transportation to a "T". I am one of the few people in the world who doesn't have a car. I am very lucky because I 1 i ve wi thin walking distance of a lot of places. One of the things about owning a car is it is expensive. And the main reason that people own cars I think is because you have 2 or 3 jobs. And it is really not convenient to take buses from one job to another. To whatever extent that a population center like Centenial and like this project can justify additional services whether it is through the developer or with the City's help or with RFTA's help to make the buses more frequent, more convenient can really be a very positive thing. As population deinsity increases it makes more and more sense for us to not turn into a mini LA. We are trying to get people off Hwy 82 but I think we should try to do everything we can to get people off samll streets liek Spruce, Park Avenue. And the way to do that is to have an attractive and efficient transportation system that stops where people want and that is frequent. I would like to this proj~ct to be really successful. I would love to see other projects like this come forth from the private sector which does not require subsidy from the City. That leaves the City more money to do other housing projects. The Commission and people of more people and more growth. you want. This is the type the community realize this does mean It is a question of which growth do of growth that is called for in the 13 PZM2.15.94 community plan. To that extent I feel very comfortable with recommending this as being in support of the community plan. MOTION Sara: I move to recommend approval of the Williams Ranch Affordable Housing Conceptual Development Plan to City Council subject tothe conditions outlined int he February 15, 1994 memorandum from the Planning Office to the Planning Commission. Roger seconded the motion with a recommendation to add language to 2c to include profiles and elevations of that intersection area and the major road cut. And including the Molly Gibson road access. Stevens: 2b--request the applicant to provide lot easement between Spruce St and new access road and provide 20 foot vehicular use. We just can't do that. We don't own the land and we don't have control over the easement. Discussion over maps followed. Stevens: If the language could be stated "The applicant shall pursue" instead. , Then on page 19 #13--"The applicant shall re-design the project to create open space property between Centennial and the Salvation Ditch". We will take a look at this but my gut reaction is having worked this over and over again for nearly a year now that the only thing that is going to resolve in dedicating all of that flat ground below Salvation Ditch to open space is a loss of the 2 townhome buildings. Gary Wright: The applicant shall consider a re-design of the project to create an open space. Stevens: The open space benefits us as much maybe even more than it does Centennial so it is definitely something we will look at. What we can't afford to do is next to the townhome buildings. Sara: That is acceptable to me. Roger: I have no problems with that. Wright: "The applicant shall work to re-design the proj ect to maximize an open space buffer". Diane: I have some problem with leaving out some of the most important part which is Centennial and Salvation Ditch. I feel strongly that that shouldn't be left out. 14 PZM2.15.94 Wright: maximize Ditch" . "The applicatn shall work to re-design the project to an open space buffer between Centennial and Salvation Stevens: #15--While we cannot eliminate Lots #15 and #16 we can bring back measures on reducing the mass of those homes. Wright: "The applicant shall propose measures to reduce the mass and bulk of the homes on parcels #15 and #16". Commission members agreed with this. Stevens: Then 19b--redisign of several townhome buildings to be small (one to three bedroom) single family or duplex houses on small lots. We really need to resist that. We really want to stick with the proposed program that we have because we feel, based on discussions with a lot of people who want to buy, that this best suits their needs. Those buildings are only right nowe about 3,400 square feet. They are not big buildigns--2 story--fit within the height limits and all that kind of stuff. So to break those up I think is probably just going to end up with more impact because things are going to tend to grow and spread out if you do that. Sara: One thing you have done is change the bedroom count. Stevens: Yes. One-bedroom, two-bedroom and three-bedroom configurations. The community plan said that this would be a good site to test small lot, small home and duplex. We have got 22 of those on here and I think that is a pretty good test. Wright: We know there is a strong demand for category 2. We know that there is a limit to how much we can lose when we build a category 2 property. If you build a category 2 duplex it is going to cost more than if you build a category 2 4-duplex. We have tried to balance size and scale and massing with wanting to build a category 2 product whether it is a 3-bedroom, 2-bedroom or 1- bedroom that anybody would just be willing to live in because that is all he can get. But they would be proud to live in it. It is a home. Leslie: One of the things that staff is looking at in combination of all of this was the creation of the open space buffer, the traffic coming to that corridor access, the Lot 15 and 16 being very steep lots and have large houses on there. So we thought if you took all that in combination and you looked at the creating bigger open space buffer, going back to smaller lots with smaller homes and we were talking about 3 or 4,OOOsf lots vs 8,000sf lots. 15 PZM2.15.94 So we were thinking that to create a greater open space buffer and move some of the townhomes up on the smaller lots and looked at down-sizing 15 and 16, you looked at all that in combination, you were starting to comply with the comments you heard from the neighborhood and things we thought were problematic with the project. Wright: When I look at #19 we also have serious problems with c and d. It seems to me that a, b, c and d kind of go together as a concept and they were based on the belief that we could increase the Williams Ranch property from approximately 13 acres to be 42 acres. If you go down to c one of the things that the condition says is that we increase the lot sizes to an acre. We can downsize what gets built on Lots 15 and 16. We can move it away from the steep slopes. That one is fairly easy. We need 16 free-market lots to drive the project. We can't make them an acre in size when we have got a 13 acre parcel. And we can't move them off of what we are proposing to annex because then we have EPA issues about levels of lead in the soil and the designation of the mine. I think we have addressed 19a elsewhere in the conditions. I would like you to consider very seriously deleting 19 in its entirety. '....... Sara: 4 plexes aren't so onerous. Midland Park has a lot of them. And Williams Ranch-- Jasmine: I don't have a problem with 4 plexes. I think we need to have them to keep your prices at something people can afford. I live in an 8 plex and it doesn't seem all that huge to me. Roger: I would be in favor of deleting it. Discussion-- Jasmine: So we could say "Prior to conceptual review by City Council the applicant shall address various design alternatives based on discussion here tonight". Stevens: When we were doing East Cooper, density was a real issue. Council said "We are not going to tell you to reduce your density. We just want to see you re-design this". That worked out really well for us. If we just know what your concerns are and then you allow us the flexibility to spend some time designing and re- designing then I think we can come back and address them. Tim: This would be the place to put in my concern about not having a masterplan so that we can explore all the ways to either expand or reduce. By knowing what the whole plan is we can then see all 16 PZM2.15.94 the pieces of the puzzle. I am concerned with voting on all of these things separately. That would help me know that we are going to look at everything in one application. Chuck Roth: We took a look at traffic impacts. We have talked about the applicants participating in mitigating some of the expenses associated with vehicle and pedestrian traffic. The Moore property, the County and the Hines development are looking at participating to the tune of $350,000 and $650,000 in redeveloping Maroon Creek, Hwy 82 access. So we think it is appropriate to get a better look at the traffic and possible means of widening the streets, more sidewalks and that type of thing. I would propose on #8 to say "The traffic analysis prepared by a licensed engineer addressing Smuggler area road capacity and recommending improvements shall be submitted at final review with participation to mitigate impacts". Sara: That goes along with my concern about subdivision and the physical impacts to the public facilities. Final language on 19. Wright: How about "Prior to conceptual review by City Council the applicant shall address the various design alternates discussed in this memorandum and by the Planning & Zoning Commission with particular attention to a masterplan to the entire parcel and Molly Gibson" . Roger: And road cuts. Sara: I amend my motion to add conditions outlined and amended. Roger: I amend my second to the motion. Everyone then voted in favor of the motion. Meeting was adjourned. Time 17