Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19940517 4 ~J(t; - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS '- PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 17. 1994 Chairman Bruce Kerr called meeting to order at 4:30 P.M. Answering roll call were David Brown, Sara Garton, Kerr. Bob Blaich and Tim Mooney were excused. excused. Roger Hunt and Bruce Jasmine Tygre was COMMISSIONER COMMENTS David: We have talked before of various ways of taking corrective measures to create additional affordable housing in conformance with the recommendation of the AACP. It is part of the agenda in 2 weeks to have discussion about housing in a joint meeting with County P&Z. It occurred to me that one of those agenda items to be discussed should be to consider an overlay to the entire City of Aspen such that any property owner anywhe=e in the City limits could, as a use by right. bring an AH project forward. STAFF COMMENTS Cindy Houben: Asked Commissioners to attend a special meeting with the County P&Z on dates of June 14th and 28th at 4:00. Commissioners consented to this. PUBLIC COMMENTS George Vicenzi: Mumbled something here. Bruce: I think now is as good a time as any. Roger: If this goes to a motion I plan to step down and withdraw from further actions on the Planning & Zoning Commission concerning this issue. The reason is not because of a conflict of interest. Yes, I live on 4th Street. Yes, Bob Blaich lives on 4th Street. Yes, these people may live on 3rd and 5th. So what! That is not the reason I am stepping down. The reason is the nature of the arguments of the group of west end residents that are promoting a reconsideration. I have just gotten tired of the personal type of attack trying to diminish the meeting of the plan by calling it "Roger Hunt's plan". It is no more my plan than it is Bob Gish's plan or anyone else's plan on that committee. I am tired of hearing people in the west end group accuse Bruce Kerr of being rude. As far as I am concerned I have never witnessed Bruce Kerr as being rude in these proceedings. This group has also accused the staff of being rude, of people not listening. I think the problem is they have been heard and they just disagree with what other people have decided on this issue. So I am going to excuse myself from these proceedings on the .P&Z considering this. That will let me be a member of that committee as a resident and a resident of 4th Street. PZM5.17.94 Bruce: I will recount a little bit of what we are instructed to do and to some extent agreed to do in the discussion of the round table brown bag discussion with City Council. At that time Roger and I both agreed that we would be willing to reconsider the last previous action we took. I don't want to try and undo all of the other meetings and the meetings we had with the Insti tute. But the last previous meeting where basically we took formal action to adopt an amendment to the SPA traffic mitigation plan which was basically the plan that was put up on the board downstairs in the Council Chambers. MOTION What I will do is make a motion at this point for us to reconsider that action and that is my motion. Sara: Based on what? Why are we reconsidering? Bruce: I think the consensus of Council-again it was not a formal meeting. There was no formal vote taken. And at least one of the Council persons did not even speak as I recall. But the consensus was they were convinced that the plan as it existed and as it was originally adopted has never been fully tried and that was basically the request of the west end homeowners was to at least go ahead and try the plan as it exists in the original SPA. Vicenzi: The original plan minus the shuttle because the shuttle doesn't work. Bruce: The natural g'3.s. Vicenzi: And the parking lot wasn't finished. And it is finished now. Bill Efting, Assistant City Manager: City Council was also very clear on- -I don't know the exact wordage on the original plan- -but they also mention 3rd, 4th and 5th Streets because of the turning radius of buses. One of the last things they said was 3rd, 4th and 5th. Bruce: With my motion I am trying to get us back to ground zero. Also it was very clear yesterday that as much as some of us don't want to have any more meetings on this subject at least for a while yet, it is very clear that Council thinks that there should be a continued dialogue and to work out some of the details of the exact routing of the buses. It was made clear by Council that there will be buses on the west end. I didn't hear any indication by Council that they are not going to have buses going through there. So what I am trying to do is get us back to ground zero and then give direction to staff unfortunately to continue to meet to try to fine-tune the details and work out the exact details of how the original plan will be implemented and if there are going to be some minor adjustments to it other than 2 PZM5.17.94 -',-."."'''-' what we have already mentioned and already approved then those need to be brought back to Planning & Zoning Commission for approval. Sara: I re-read the original approval last night that what we are doing is going back to 4th Street. But we are no longer asking that the buses drop everyone on Main Street which is also part of this original plan. We are all in agreement at this point because of what Council and staff and everyone has said that that is not feasible. ?: Because the shuttle bus is not available--the gas shuttle bus. If it were then that would still be part of the plan. But since we don't have that shuttle bus, we are willing to forgo that aspect of the plan. Sara: Well there is a whole item that says they will walk from Main Street. ?: We are not talking about that. All we are talking about is the 4th Street exiting after the concerts. Bruce: So 3rd, 4th and 5th will all be used for some bus traffic. The primary change is that the buses, after the concerts for the most part, will be coming down 4th Street or up 4th Street and not exclusively 3rd and 5th. In the revised plan that we approved a couple of weeks ago we had talked about 4th being a pedestrianjbikewaykind of thing and we are basically putting that on hold for the time being and going back to the original plan. Buses will be using 3rd, 4th and 5th. pedestrians will still be using 4th. ?: When this plan was originally devised 4th Street was going to be a walkway because the pedestrians were going to be dropped at 4th and Main. Practically speaking after the concerts the people walked, they are either going to grab a bus at the tent and be delivered out to Main Street and head on into town or they are going to take the Lake Avenue walkway. Sara: Your motion was just to re-considerour motion from a week ago? Bruce: Yes. Sara: I second that. Don Swails: I have lived on 4th and Francis and 5th and Francis. I was also on the Commission that studied this 3 years ago. If I remember correctly we were trying at that time to not defuse the traffic allover the west end. We were trying to narrow it down to a couple of streets. And it seems to me that what you originally decided sounds like a pretty good plan. I don't know why you want to mix pedestrians and buses together on the same street. " 3 PZM5.17.94 ",,",-,.....- I don't have any special interest. You go put the pedestrians on 5th. That is fine. The buses on 4th. I don't care. Right now I am living on 4th and Francis. I don't care. I live in the west end and while you live in the west end it is like buying a house on the end of the runway, you can't bitch about the traffic from the planes. Well part of the joy of being in the west end is that the fact that you know the MAA. You have all these things and you are going to get some traffic. That is just part of it. But I don't know why you want to mix buses and pedestrians on one street. Have you considered having a loop instead of going both ways on 2 streets? Bruce: All of the above have been considered. Robert Harth, MAA: The Music Festival is happy to work with either plan. Or if there is a 3rd one we are happy to consider that one too. What I really don't want is next Fall to have another 25 or 30 hours of meetings reviewing the traffic mitigation plan. It is to be reviewed bi-annually. And whatever you folks want to decide is fine. We will work with it. We will work with RFTA. We will work with the west end neighbors. But I am here to ask you to please not put that process back- -if you are going to go backwards and say that we are not in compliance with the mitigation plan and we are going to come this Fall and we are going to start picking the plan apart again so we can start deciding whether or not buses can come to the west end or cars can come to the west end and then we are going to add to that residential permit parking only in the west end--you know we just want to get our patrons to the tent and we would like them to leave afterwards and we would like to have them have public transportation available. We have met this one to death, folks. We will keep meeting. terms of compliance and in terms of bi-annual reviews I hope remember what the schedule is and the time that has been put But in you will into it. Bruce: I appreciate that. As far as I am concerned we have done our bi-annual review. I am not sure what the result is going to be yet. But that has been done. So as far as I am concerned the bi-annual review in terms of how it affects the members of the Consortium or the parties to the SPA that will only happen 2 years from now. That doesn't mean that there won't be some tweaking and some agreements made and all that kind of thing. And we are not trying to make any finding at all about the Institute or the MAA that there is a non-compliance at all. Our previous meetings were very clear that we found those in compliance. Sara: Robert, there is something I see happening. So hopefully not a full review next summer. Probably by next summer the residential permit parking may be in effect and that would require just talking with you but not meetings. 4 PZM5.17.94 Harth: On my desk is a copy of the residential permit parking plan that shows that there will be no parking in the west end during MAA events. We would like to address that at some point because we think that might cause some problems. We would certainly need to put more buses on. And we have heard from the west end that they want us to keep our buses to a minimum which means we need parking on the streets. Sara: And in this plan it says people would also go into paying for your parking lot. So those would be things that would be thrown in once that permit parking goes in. Harth: But the bus issue is very critical to that and we have heard loud and clear from the west end residents that the fewer buses, the quieter the buses, the less trips the better. And we are trying to address that issue. If you cut out our parking and we start charging for parking then we need more buses. And we will go either way but we do want to be recognized as needing to go one way or the other. ?: At that point then we might want to revisit the part about dropping people off at 4th and Main and the shuttle again. Ann Altemus: I live on 3rd Street. I think what Mr. Harth doesn't realize is we aren't increasing the numbers of people. He is increasing the numbers of concerts. Therefore he wants more buses. I should think we can't solve that problem by letting him escalate because he is scheduling more and more concerts. I don't think we have complained too much about the quantity of buses or the hours they run. Perry Harvey: Using maps: I just want to go through how after 4 and 1/2 years of working with the Consortium and the City and the Traffic Committee how we got to where we got to. When we formed the committee and worked to give the neighborhood something they could rely on that would work that would make the City, RFTA and the neighborhood and the MAA and the Institute responsible for a traffic plan that would be a better experience living in that neighborhood and would get people more efficiently to the concerts. Dan Blankenship at RFTA, when we talked about 3rd, 4th and 5th and how we were going to route this he wanted the buses coming from Ruby Park out Main to stop at 4th. The reason was that there is that shed roof on the old Mesa Store Bakery Building. From there on a nice day every- body was going to walk down 4th to the concert. On a rainy day they would have a place to wait for the natural gas shuttle that would come down 5th, swing back here, drop people off and come out 3rd and run that circuit. So 4th Street became a pedestrian way going into the concerts for that reason. Leaving the concerts nobody is going to walk out to 4th. It was our conclusion that they would walk down Lake and through the pedestrian corridor, come back out at the Jerome and the center of town. Or they , 5 PZM5.17.94 "_"'d,_". can get on a bus, come back out here. There was to be a police officer who would direct the traffic to get these buses out. There was to be no auto traffic on this bus route so that people would sit there and say "Wow, if I got on that bus, I could be back into town a hell of a lot faster than sitting in a car stacked up in traffic on either of these streets". The conclusions were that the buses would not have a lot of pedestrian conflict leaving the concerts. When we were in the process, Council and P&Z wanted an every-other- year review of how this was in effect--how it was working. I argued that 1993 should not be the first review year because it wouldn't give a fair chance for this program to be implemented with the full impact of the lodge facilities out at the Institute and their van service and the rehearsal hall and the new parking lot and everything completed out at the MAA facilities and campus. And in fact this is the first year that we really got this in effect. I would like to say to you I would like to see because it is part of the SPA which is a contractual agreement that we give this plan the support and the co-operation between all the various entities--RFTA, the Police Dept and the City and the MAA and the Institute. Give it a chance to work with the new parking lot, with the new pulloffs, with the rehearsal hall out there with it's schedule and see what happens and come back and take a look at it in 2 years. But give this a chance because it was a product of about 4 years of work and I don't think you are going to see the conflicts here between the buses when the buses are working the street I don't think you are going to see a conflict with pedestrians. Bruce: I think technically what we have to do tonight is to have the motion to reconsider our previous action and have it come on the agenda at the first available time after it has been properly noticed in order to take any formal action about approving this plan or any other plan. There being no further discussion everyone then voted in favor of the motion. Bruce: In the meantime, Mary, if you can convey to Bob Gish and all the parties involved in this--get with the west end homeowners and work out the details we talked about--the "No Parking" signs on 4th Street and the other things that may have to take place if ultimately this is the plan that ends up being adopted so that when we come to that meeting on June 7 or June 21st, we know very clearly what we are going to either approve or not approve. What I would like to see on that date is a plan that everybody that comes into this room except for us has already said "Yes, that is it". And as much as I despise being a rubber stamp board, that is what I would like for this board to be the next time the west end traffic mitigation plan comes to us. I would like for us to rubberstamp ,. 6 PZM5.17.94 whatever it is that is brought to us that is agreed upon. I think we have tried to make it clear that those of us that sit at this table really don't have a preference. I don't care whether the buses go 3rd Street, 4th Street or 5th Street. I don't think my fellow Commissioners do either. We want a plan that everybody else has agreed to that we can look at and say "Yes, that makes sense" or at least enough sense that we can try the plan and see if it is going to work. And we sign off on it and we are done for 2 years or until it needs further tweeking. MINUTES APRIL 5. 1994 Sara: I move to approve the minutes of April 5, 1994. David seconded the motion with all in favor. CREEKTREE SUBDIVISION/PUD AMENDMENT Bruce opened the public hearing. MOTION David made a motion to table and continue this hearing to date certain of June 7, 1994. Sara seconded the motion with all in favor. VOLK CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR ADU Mary Lackner made presentation as attached in record. Bruce asked the applicant if there were any problems with the conditions of approval. Sunny Vann. representative for applicant: All of the conditions are fine except #4. (attached in record) I am asking that condition #5 be amended to reflect the deletion of condition #4. Lackner: We don't have a problem with that. Roger: So then condition #5 recommendations except paragraph 4 memoll. would be "Comply with all the from the Engineering Dept referral Bruce opened the public hearing and asked for comments from the public. There were none and he closed the public portion of the hearing. 7 PZM5.17.94 MOTION Roger: I move to approve the conditional use for a 525 square foot attached accessory dwelling unit for Lot #2 of the Volk lot split at 735 Bay Street with conditions #1 through #4 and #6 as written on the Planning Office memo dated May 17, 1994 with condition #5 being modified to read "The applicant shall comply with the recommendations except for paragraph #4 by the Engineering Dept in their referral memo- randum. Sara seconded the moticn with all in favor. MOLLY GIBSON CONDOS CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT Mary Lackner made presentation as attached in record. There was discussion regarding snow shedding. Bruce asked the applicant if they had any problem with the conditions. ?: Generally one that Chuck and I have talked about. The on-site parking for the ADU--we have 2 driveways and ordinances allow one 18 foot wide maximum driveway. Chuck has recognized the fact that we have got a condition here which won't allow us to get the cars on site where the lot is configured with one driveway. But he is saying we have inadequate street curb area to park an ADU car on the street. There is no curb and gutter there at all. It is paved to a soft shoulder. In the future we would be putting in curb and gutter whenever the City is doing that. We are required to go along with that. What we would like to do is not put the ADU car on site and actually have it on this soft shoulder. I want to come back and ask for an alternate approach on the ADU parking on site. What I am looking for here is that we would be able to park on shoulder continuously as opposed to 1 now and 1 later. Roth, City Engineer: Just because you show a parking space on your site plan, nobody is going around checking to make sure that the guy in the ADU is parking in this spot on the plans. The ROW there is probably insufficient in width to provide 2 lanes to travel with on street parking. Lackner: The issue is ADUs don't require a parking space. But with the parking constraints on the street we would like to see a space on site. She then asked about stack parking. ''"'f'__. 8 PZM5.17.94 ?: That would work in terms of allocating the parking space if we can do a tandem arrangement. We find that pretty common in design of duplexes as well. If that works with Bill Drueding we would go along with parking on the driveway. That would work for us. Bruce: Basically we need to decide whether we go ahead and follow staff's recommendation that we require a spot on site--whether that spot can be in the driveway outside of the garage. Chuck will need to check on that and if it doesn't work according to Drueding then there will need to be another spot somewhere on site. The second option would be to say "No we think this is a case where the ADU does not require a parking space" . Bruce then opened the public hearing and asked for comments from the public. There was no public comment and he closed the public portion of the hearing. Sara: It is a very rare family or person that doesn't own a car and would like to store it. So I would say I would recommend trying to at least make a space available to them. And whoever lives there knows that is their space. Yes, I go along with staff's recommendation. MOTION - Roger: I move to approve a conditional use for a 450 square foot attached accessory dwelling unit for the Molly Gibson Loop Condominiums Unit B at 450 Riverside Drive with conditions #1 through #7 as stated on the Planning Office memo dated May 17, 1994. David seconded the motion. Bruce: As I understand the motion we are requiring a parking place to be on site and if it works to be the driveway, fine. If it doesn't then there needs to be another spot whether it is paved or pavers or whatever. I think is up to staff. All agreed with this and all then voted in favor of the motion. Bruce then adjourned the meeting. Time was 5:35 P.M. 9