Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19940301 ~f-! '. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING , ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 1. 1994 vice Chairlady Jasmine Tygre called meeting to order at 4:30 P.M. Answering roll call were David Brown, Tim Mooney, Sara Garton, Roger Hunt and Jasmine Tygre. Bruce Kerr arrived shortly after roll call. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Roger: I am distressed with what I perceive as city Council's turnaround as far as attitude of municipal parking under Inde- pendence Place. And in view of that fact when IP comes before us I think we should send Council a resolution that we should re- consider Kraut Property parking and re-visit Kraut Property. In view of what I have read, I am quite concerned in this attitudinal change. I perceived they were very much i~ favor of municipal parking under IP. And I did not get that from what I read in the newspapers on the meeting I was unable to attend. If we are not going to get parking under IP then we had better re-consider Kraut. Tim: I am aware that Aspen Skiing Co is 2,700 employees now. And I am wondering why they don't have to mitigate. Even though they are not building a bigger store or they are not physically enlarging their square footage that we can measure, I would like to know what the jump in their employee numbers has been and how they have been able to impact the community to enhance their business and not mitigate what anybody else would have to mitigate. Roger: If there is some expansion that is where we address mitigation. David: I would like to applaud the Housing Authority Board in taking forward a proposal to city council to move forward on the Snyder project. I am disappointed that City Council did not move forward with supporting that project. I thought it was a great way for the City to leverage limited housing funds and get more bang for the buck than they have been able to do on a per unit basis. Hopefully there will be some way City Council in the future might be able to similarly leverage limited funds to help alleviate some of the housing problems. Jasmine: I agree with you thoroughly and would like to add my support to your comments. STAFF COMMENTS Leslie: There will be a meeting next Tuesday. \ PUBLIC COMMENTS There were none. II PZM3.1.94 ~ "'",- MINUTES JANUARY 4. 1994 Sara made a motion to approve minutes of January 4, 1994. Roger seconded the motion with all in favor. TENTH MOUNTAIN DIVISION HUT ASSOCIATION Jasmine opened the public hearing. MOTION Roger made a motion to table and continue this hearing to date certain of March 22, 1994 at the applicant's request. Sara seconded the motion with all in favor. HERON PARK PLACE Jasmine opened the public hearing. MOTION - Roger: At Planning Office's request I make a motion to table and continue this hearing to date certain of March 22, 1994. Sara seconded the motion with all in favor. JUAN STREET AFFORDABLE HOUSING PUD SUBDIVISION AND GMOS EXEMPTION Bruce opened the public hearing. Leslie made presentation as attached in record. In my recommendations of approval on page #27--D3--under a, I would like to change that wording to "A requirement that the homeowners shall keep dogs on the property using leashes or employing fences or invisible fences". And then #7 page 28 I would like to change the wording to say "The applicant shall maintain the historic runoff patterns that are on the site which include drainage from above the property and shall correct any runoff or erosion problems that are found during development of the site". And then I am eliminating #12. ..-" 2 PZM3.1.94 And finally under the PUD variations for the project although the total is 8,934 square feet the applicant is requesting to cap it at 9,200 square feet in case they run into any problems we don't have to completely reopen the review. Scott Smith, architect: Made presentation. Dave: Is there a garage door? Dave Tolen, Housing: We would like to not have a garage door. We will have an insulated crawl space above the garage structure. David: From what I can tell everyone is walking into a potential avalanche off the roof particularly on the north side. Tim: What about energy efficient shower head~, windows and doors? Scott: We are getting a package on energy and water efficiency together. Tim: What happens to on-street parking? Scott: There is no on street parking. Richman: Potential avalanche danger: Demonstrated with maps and reports that this area is out of avalanche danger. There is a 100 year old house on this property which has not been affected by avalanche in 100 years. Scott: The setback request based on HPC recommendation we have moved the 5 foot setback to a I foot setback on Lot #6. We have basically just moved the historic structure a little further toward the street still keeping the porch and stairs on this property but stopping a foot short of the property line in order to lower the house down a little and get a more useful back yard. Bruce asked for elevations and stated his concern about windows on the back side of the front units where it could be looking right down into those units. Scott: The views would be from the stair areas. Bruce: So in those back duplexes you have got most of the glass on the south side looking towards the mountain. Scott: Yes. Richman: In condition #1, I would like to see the language tighter in the first sentence. We understand that if those need to be 3 II PZM3.1.94 ~ replaced we will be required to pay our proportionate share. We -,' don't think we ought to be responsible for upgrading the entire water main or an entire sanitary collection. We are prepared to pay our proportionate share and to install the fire hydrant. I would like that statement to be "Proportionate share based on the project's impact". Leslie: I don't think it is up to us to change that language. The applicant should work that out with the proper departments on that. Richman: We can do that. In the referral comments from the Environmental Health Dept they indicate that the project is going to generate 20 additional trips a day. This is 6 units. The standard that is available to us from the Pitkin County Road Standards I am not sure whether 24 trips. This would be each of the 2 occupants making 2 trips a day in and out with their cars. And they would be going 5 miles on each of those trips? Where are we going? Where are we generating this type of number in the Aspen area? Lesl.ie: You can just explore and they will not hold up your ,_. building permit because they think you mitigate 100% of the DUT and you differ on that. Richman: That I am very glad to do. complaint. with that I withdraw my Bruce opened the public hearing. Mary Barbee: I am one of the adjacent property owners. Generally looking at this I have several concerns. This is an isolated piece of property that has undeveloped area all the way around it. If you look at page 6 you will see to the right as you go up the hill on Aspen Street to about 19 are all undeveloped areas, except the mine dump, which are already affordable housing by use. Then you look to the left and you see where it says R-15. There is 14 acres undeveloped in there much of it above the 8040 line. I think that there is far more potential of integrating this site into other affordable housing plans that will emerge that might make not developing at this point a viable concern. As I look at their maps of the planning since there is private property on 3 sides of this the ability to protect those property owners in terms of keeping the usage on property I think this is an area of concern that needs to be addressed. The fencing-- --., 4 PZM3.1. 94 whatever it is--I think that we need to be aggressive in defining this. The parking area of Juan street. This Juan street is an undersized street. It is not a full size city street. And as of the late 1940s this was then designated a no parking street. So I think that the issue of the underground parking is very well addressed here. I am wondering how we are going to maintain the viability of not parking on that street. As we talk about upgrading the system of both sewer and water to accommodate this, what is the implication to the adjacent property owners who haven't entered into development? Will it be brought up to speed based on what exists currently? I really would like to see good definition of securing the property to be it's own being, the integrity of it. ~nd it not spreading to the adjacent undeveloped properties. And then finally the issue of the parking really needs to be aggressively addressed. David Ellis: I am owner of the Timber Ridge Condominiums. In general I have no objection to development on the site of affordable housing. The only serious concern I have is the street width relative to the access for emergency equipment and parking. People do park up there despite the no-parking signs. This reduces the street particularly at this time of the year to one lane. So I think my concern would be to see that even if the street is not brought up to ultimate design standards that it be effectively increased in useable width so that 2 cars can pass with snow storage--somewhere around 28 to 30 feet. Then the 4 foot setback for the historic house. Whether or not the street is developed now something is going to happen. And it seems to me that it would be an injustice to whoever is going to live in that structure to be 1 foot off the ROW. There being no further public comments Bruce closed the public portion of the hearing. Chuck Roth, City Engineer: Any utility work should be shared proportionately by the current and future developments. Roger: street is the Will that 1 foot setback afford sufficient privacy from the if there is a sidewalk there? A 1 foot front yard setback smallest setback I know of in this City. Dave: The entry to the historic house is about 6 feet above the sidewalk level and street level. So there is vertical separation there. It is not 1 foot from the building to the property line. It is 1 foot from the porch to the property line. 5 II PZM3.1. 94 Roger: I just want it to be for the record here that what we are about to approve here then is a sidewalk right adjacent to a 6 foot wall then 1 foot from a porch or 5 or 6 feet to the house portion above that. Leslie: I have some wording on the dog condition. #3-a. If the homeowners have dogs that when the dog is on the premises they shall be controlled by either leashes, enclosed in fences, kept inside, etc. Then based upon the presentation tonight I would say "Prior to PUD subdivision by Council the following revised the applicant shall submit the following plans for the garage, retaining wall and the entrance to the garage. "Prior to PUD plat subdivision review by Council revised plans for the garage, retaining wall and entrance to the garage shall be submitted for review." And for Letter E where I talked about all of the PUD variations- -small letter d--front yard for Lot #6 will be 1 foot. MOTION .-~'" Roger: I move to recommend rezoning of the property from R-15L PUD to Affordable Housing. That is Lot 3 through 6, Block 11. I further recommend approval of the text amendment as outlined in this memo for section 24-505.2 to reduce the minimum lot size for single family and duplex family units on parcels less than 27,000 square feet to 1,500 square feet. And I further move to recommend a consolidated PUD review process and I further move to approve the PUD Subdivision review of this development with conditions #1 and #2 as in Planning Office memo dated March 1, 1994. (attached in record) Condition #3 as modified by Leslie. Conditions #4, #5 and #6 as in the memo. Condition #7 as modified by Leslie. Conditions #8, #9 and #10 and #11 as in the memo. The present Condition #12 deleted. And renumbering Conditions #13 through #16 consecutively using eh new numbers Condition #12, #13 and #14 as in the memo. Condition #15 as revised by Leslie. And also that includes E as another motion. I further move to recommend the PUD variations as outlined in paragraph E of previously stated memo. Then I will move to approve the Special Review for parking and open space and 8040 Greenline Review for the Juan street development with the conditions of F and G of the Planning Office memo dated March 1, 1994. - 6 PZM3.1. 94 I finally move to recommend to Council GMQS exemption for the development of 6 affordable dwelling units as proposed by the applicant for Juan street. Jasmine seconded the motion. David: The dog condition is typically applied to affordable housing and not applied to free market housing. And it is a concern of all the citizenry due to impacts on wildlife. I think this would be more appropriately addressed by city ordinance or county ordinance. I think it is very important from a life safety standpoint to assume that there is going to be some on-street parking and assume that it might make it difficult for emergency vehicles to service not just this site but adjacent sites. And I think it might be wise to provide for 8 and 1/2 to 10 feet of widening of the paved surface on the south side of Juan street for on-street parking and also to address the potential for visiter parking. Leslie: foot? Are you suggesting that we widen Juan street to the 50 David: Even if it were gravel. Just so there is some parking area in the ROW adjacent to the curb. Leslie: Would the Commission feel comfortable if we resolve this issue prior to Council? David: Yes. Sara: I don't want to see the street widened. I would rather have it signed "No Parking". Roll call vote: Robert asked not to vote as this was his first meeting. Tim, yes, Sara, yes, David, yes, Jasmine, yes, Roger, yes, Bruce, no. Bruce: I want to explain why I am voting "no". I favor rezoning. I favor affordable housing on this site. I have some questions about making a text amendment for this one proj ect. I have no problem with the consolidation. But the fact is we have one motion in front of us so I can't vote "Yes" or "No" on various segments of it. And finally I am voting "No" because I don't feel like we have given this project a full level of scrutiny as we would have another project that would have come in front of us. And I am just not prepared to vote "Yes" at this point in time. The motion passes 5 to 1. 7 PZM3.1. 94 Bruce closed the public hearing and the regular portion of the meeting. Time was 6:15 P.M. Members then continued with a joint work session regarding GMQS with County Planning & Zoning Commission. JANICE/ / / ~t; CARNEY, CITY CLERK 8