Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19940719 '""" f" .. - I l",--, I"......' """- F ~ .- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 19. 1994 Chairman Bruce Kerr called meeting to order at 4:30 P.M. Answering roll call were Steven Buettow, Marta Chaikovska, Tim Mooney, Sara Garton, Roger hunt and Bruce Kerr. Robert Blaich and Jasmine Tygre were excused. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS There were none. STAFF COMMENTS Kim brought commissioners up to date on the installed traffic plan for the west end and attendies of the Music Festival. Roger: I can tell you the traffic plan in the west end is working generally well. Leslie: We have set up September 6 as a work session date with the City Attorney on limited liability companies. This is a regular meeting date. Roger asked for discussion at the same time regarding approval of projects that put the City in the hole as far as services if for some reason we can't up our taxation to cover the services required for a development--as a result of the Bruce Amendment. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were none. MINUTES JUNE 7. 1994 Roger: I move to adopt minutes of June 7, 1994. Sara seconded the motion with all in favor. SMITH CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT AND 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW Bruce opened the public hearing. Mary Lackner, Planning: Made presentation as attached in record. Public notice was submitted. (attached in record) Brooke Peterson, Attorney for Rowars: Rowars is the new owner of the real estate immediately behind the Smith property. He then read a letter into record stating Rowars concerns regarding this application. (attached in record) PZM7.19.94 Subsequent to this letter I have had numerous discussions with Mr. Smith and my client. We are prepared to agree that if Mr. Smith is willing to agree and it is acceptable to the Commission that as far as Mr. Rowars is concerned we have no objection to an addition to Mr. & Mrs. Smith's home if that addition is kept at the height of the present roof line. In return for Mr. & Mrs. Smith's agreement to that we are willing to allow Mr. Smith & Mrs. Smith temporary access on our driveway easement through County property over which we have control at the present time to construct this ADU and the addition to his home because it will be less damaging to the environment. I believe that is the understanding Mr. Smith and I reached late last week. And on behalf of Mr. Rowars that is acceptable to us. We are not objecting to the construction of the additional space or the additional dwelling unit. We simply want the height kept at the height of the existing roof line. Bruce asked for public comment. ,r'.....""... Jim Auster: I have a contract on the adjoining property owned by the County. I would like to echo Brooke's comments. The adj oining property will be affected by the height of this addition and we wanted to see the height kept to the original end of the house. Mr. Smith presented plans originally that did keep the height and character at that level and just recently raised it up which impacts the view both from behind the house and people down looking at the mountain. '- I offered the same proposal to the Smiths regarding the construction access. Since we have a contract on it the County has agreed not to grant any construction access over that property unless we have proof of that and without that approval there will not be any construction access from that direction. On the adjoining property there is not enough room to get around the house without going on an adjoining property. So we would like to see the height reduced to the existing height of the house. It does work. It may reduce the size of a few of the windows but it does work. The alternative construction access that the Smith's have is straight up the hillside behind Barry Siegel's house and I am afraid quite an impact on the vegetation. In that area a very visible scar will be created up that hillside if they use that access for construction. So we would like to see the height reduced. In exchange we will agree to construction easement. If they don't agree to that it will be some considerable scarring going up the hillside and you will have greater visual impact. Barry Siegel: I am Bob Smith's neighbor to the south. the plans he submitted--I think the last version. I have reviewed I don't have any '--- 2 PZM7.19.94 ..- problem with it if he wants to access to the north of my house. Based on the 10 years Bob has been my neighbor he has planted more trees on my property than I have. I know it will be re-vegetated better than it is now. It is his hobby. It is his passion. There are more trees on the north side of my house which he planted than on the south side of my house which I planted. So I have absolute confidence that it will be restored rapidly. He has to look at it more than I do. Sharon Siegel: I have no problem with him doing the construction. Any of the vegetation I know will be restored and any scarring of the area will be restored quickly. I have no objection to them using our land for access at all. Edna?: I am the previous owner of Chuck Rowars house and still living in it. Since I am leaving I shouldn't have any feelings about it but he has been a great neighbor. I too agree with how much time Bob and Glenda and the kids have put into their surrounding property. They are planting grass. They are planting trees. They are saving flowers. They are doing everything they can--connecting hoses everywhere all over the hill to make sure everything gets watered. So I am sure that they would take care of the land. I invite you all up to my kitchen so you can overlook that area and see. I don't feel that it obstructs anything. I know nothing about architecture but I would be glad to have you come up and look at it. F ~ Anyway he has been a great neighbor and I think he would do a great job at whatever he does. '- Bruce asked if there were any further comments. There were none. Sara: Clarification from both Brooke and Jim- -you mentioned that you would allow construction access- -only construction access through their property? After it is built he cannot access through that drive? Brooke: As I understand it the plans that we are dealing with this afternoon, which is the second set of plans, don't require access at this time of a permanent nature because there is not a garage. It is not an entrance. They are still going to be entering from the other side of the Smith's property. Smith: I prefer to have the first plan with a garage. But since speaking with Jim Auster--and we walked on his little cul-de-sac there where Chuck comes and they pile the snow. That will not have a build- ing on it as far as Jim is concerned. He is worried about standing on it when there is grass or something there and looking out at town and is worried about my height which is way below it no matter what. /" ,,--~. He said he wouldn't give me access unless I took the garage out or lowered my garage roof. So with not knowing all this I said "OK if you are not giving me access then I have to go and redesign the plan". The plan--the footprint is exactly the same as the one with the garage with slight variation. I tried to get it to make it at one height with my .--- 3 ..- PZM7.19.94 "'"-,, roof because it is much easier for me cost-wise to use their access. (to Brooke) But getting your letter late after I talked to you I have decided that I would rather work with Barry Siegel and go up that way and my architect and I had a topo map done legally by a professional that we have to stay 2 feet higher than our ridge line or else the front windows of this unit are going to be down in the ground. The people would look out and the accessory dwelling unit is going to have dirt right there. And 2 feet makes a huge difference. That is why I put these strings up there so people could actually see. (showing pictures) The only thing I am going to block is Barry Siegel's roof. So if you look at Barry Siegel's roof, you look at mine. I am willing to give up probably the access, which I am, so I can keep my height up so it is better for the people who live in it. When we built these projects we went up the same way I am going now. This is not a steep hill. You can see how it is re-vegetatedand we did all our excavation that way when we first built the house so we wouldn't ruin anything up there. And then we replanted all of this. And this is what it looks like now. Between the Siegel's house and my house we planted trees so that way there would be absolutely no disturbance other than I had to move some Aspen trees and I will move them back and replant. Again, that is my view. I look right out there so I am not going to leave it ugly. That is my main view. - ~ The house--you can asi<: Edna--you can stand on her deck and look out and if you look down to the far left corner you will see some red lines--that is the strings I have--that will be the peek of my roof. I have tried everything I could to lower my height. As far as Jim Auster is concerned if he ever gets his approvals to do his project, his house will never look down on mine at all. He is only worried about if he is standing out there and it is grass or a lawn chair looking down he will see my roof. But when he builds his house there will be no impact whatsoever. If anybody will go up there and stand on the cul-de-sac and look out you will know exactly what I mean. It is flat and then it goes up. Is that true, Jim, you are just worried about if you are sitting there in a lounge chair and looking out to town-- Auster: That area is within our building envelope. Smith: So are you putting the house right there? Auster: We don't have any plans yet. .-<'.,,-.. Smith: See, that's what is hard for me to comprehend. That somebody who has no house plans or anything like this--again if you go look from there that wouldn't be the obvious place for them to build. But as far as Chuck Rowars goes when I read this letter after agreeing with Brooke about lowering it I did everything I could with the architect. , - 4 PZM7.19.94 ,-,..--- I am allowed according to the Building Codes to be 9 feet high. And I am only 2 feet high. So I don't think that is being excessive. I have already talked to Barry and Sharon. I have a contract signed by all parties that I will have a legal access to drive up there to do the construction. Bruce: Point of clarification: The matter of the access easement for construction and the 2 feet height variation is actually a matter of private contract with private agreement. It is not part of what we are deciding here tonight. What we have to decide is whether this application as submitted and as amended fits within the standards of the 8040 Greenline review. And if we find that it does then we approve it. And then it is up to them to work out the easement. But that is not something that we are going to try to decide for them. Leslie: Staff needs to know that so we can look at any amended plans. Bruce: I think the staff memo indicated that you have recommended approval regardless of which access is used. Peterson: Is what Mary's memorandum recommending approval for is the red line or the line or the silver line on your pictures? Smith: What he is saying is that this isn't the place or time to ~ ., discuss that. We have to work that out. ~ Bruce: We are either going to approve or deny it based on what we have in our packet and what has been submitted to us by staff. If it is the feeling of this Commission that the extra 2 feet is too much and doesn't fit in with the hillside or whatever, so be it. But the agreement or lack thereof between these parties is not our concern here. Peterson: I was trying to raise the issue of what the application represents on site. Smith: The red line. Peterson: The red line. OK. Smith: That is 2 feet higher than what is there. ?: If you approve the lower height, then we will go along with the less impact construction easement. That is the difference in what you approve. We are not trying to get through our construction easement. The effect of the construction easement straight up the hill from Barry Siegel's--frombehind is a much greater visual impact coming up the front. If you approve the lower height they will be able to use the upper access. Then you will have less scarring of the hillside. ,"",.,...... -- 5 PZM7.19.94 - Bruce: It is not up to us to approve the lower height. The application is for the higher height. And we either approve the higher height based on the standards of the 8040 Greenline Review or reject it. At this point those are our options. Siegel: When Bob and I built our houses simultaneously we had several bulldozers running as a part of that construction. I defy anyone to see where the damage is at this point in time. That is all to his credit--not mine. MOTION Roger: I move to approve the 8040 Greenline Review for approximately 1,600 square foot addition on Lot #5, Sunny Park North Subdivision and Conditional Use Review for approximately 700 square foot attached accessory dwelling unit within that 1,600 square feet with conditions #1 through #9 on Planning Office memo dated July 19, 1994. (attached in record) Marta seconded the motion. Smith: This unit that I am doing--I am still under my allowable FAR by putting this unit in and not using the bonus system or anything else. We are not taking the subgrade out--if you count as 1,600 square feet and you take the 700 off for the accessory dwelling unit you get 250 square feet credit plus the subgrade. You get credit for that. I am still--you count everything at 1,600 square feet and add my house ~ together I am still 250 feet under my FAR allowable. When Mary told me 1,600 square feet, I had a cow myself. I didn't think it was going to be that big. But when you take off all that stuff, I am not even exceeding my FAR as far as the bulk and all of that goes. Marta: You are very timely. Sara: You mean above grade. Smith: No. Total. If you take my total house--what I am allowed on my FAR. Sara: But your ADU is above grade--that is when you get a bonus. Smith: Well, it is above grade. Sara: Right. And you are not taking the bonus. Smith: But I have some subgrade stuff. But still even including all of that--again I am building into the side of the hill so it is less impact on everybody. .'- Peterson: I am not here to say--I feel like I have been sandbagged. The last conversation I had with Bob indicated that we had reached an acceptable compromise. With that aside I think I have to now to urge -- 6 ~-- PZM7.19.94 '<",.-'" the board to take due consideration first of all the severity with which any 8040 Greenline development is treated. The fact that Bob and Glenda can keep their house under the existing FAR doesn't have anything to do with whether or not a development is appropriate in the 8040 Greenline situation. I hate to bring up the horrible example of the Hogue Subdivision. But you all know what you have been through and what I have been through in dealing with the Hogue Subdivision. All of that development was well within the height limitations, well within FAR limitations and all of the things that Bob and Glenda are contending should allow them to do this. Unfortunately I don't think that they can meet criteria #5 that the grading is going to minimize to the extent practical disturbances of terrain, vegetation and natural land use. That the placement that the building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend into the open character of the mountain. I urge you, at the minimum, to take the time to do a site visit because I think that is important in any 8040 Greenline situation. And my experience, my office's experience and most of the time when there is an 8040 Greenline question the Commission does take the time to make that site review. The other issues that come up with this 8040 Greenline are really what .- I said before. And that is that the height and bulk of this property and this addition which we are not trying to prevent the Smith's from -- doing. I am not trying to appear to be a bad neighbor. But it does have an impact on a neighboring piece of property and it is in my mind and my estimation an impact that is worth noting in the 8040 Greenline situation in addition to which you need to take into consideration that any 8040 Greenline Review has to be looked at from the rest of the City. That is the whole reason we have an 8040 Greenline. And I would urge you to consider what adding, even though it seems like a minimal amount of 2 feet to Bob and Glenda's house up on the side of Smuggler Mountain- -what affect that will in fact have. I think it is appropriate for the Commission in this instance--that the application is to have this out to 2 feet. We know that there are viable alternatives. And I know it is not up to the Commission to design the project for the Smiths. But it is up to the Commission to make sure that the conditions that are contained in the section of the code dealing with 8040 Greenline are met. And I think that those conditions are not met by this application in it's present form. Bruce: We have a motion and a second. J"',',...... Sara: In thinking about the height I would like to remind the Commission that if ADU's are built we care a lot about the quality of life in that ADU. And since what the applicant represents is supposed to be true his architect says that any reducing it by 2 feet is going to bring all the windows in the ADU to what we call garden level, that -- 7 PZM7.19.94 '~ is not enhancing the quality of life of that ADU. Staff, if the project is approved and finally built, access for both the main house and the ADU will be on the present driveway? Mary: Yes. Sara: So this access is only for the construction. Roger: Clarification for #5. The construction access you are proposing was used before for construction of both this and the Siegel project? Mary: Yes Roger: Under the circumstances that qualifies as minimizing to the extent practical. Now if it would be further minimized through further negotiation--thatis great. I should modify my motion slightly to indicate that we have found that criteria #1 through #11 have been met for this 8040 Greenline Review approval. Marta: I accept that for my second of the motion. Bruce then closed the public portion of the hearing. ~ Roll call vote: Steven, no, Marta, yes, Tim, yes, Sara, yes, Roger, yes, Bruce, no. Motion passes 4 to 2. ZOLINE REZONING Leslie made presentation as attached in record. Bruce: I know you said this has been noticed publicly but as a matter of courtesy have we contacted the lessee of this property to let him know? Leslie: All property owners within 300 feet were notified. Bruce: I know but he is not a property owner. Leslie: Yes he is. I know that because Mr. Zoline called me and asked what is going on. So we know that it was mailed out. Bruce: In the MCDC plans has there ever been anything proposed on this property of the nature of what you are talking about? ..~ Leslie: No. And I double checked the plans before we recommended it and there is no structures proposed for that area. _. 8 PZM7.19.94 -,-' Roger: Aside from making the comment that those berms really negate any open space I want to get down into the technical aspect of it. City of Aspen has this corner. If you have this flag pole going right by City of Aspen property shouldn't that flag pole end that short distance of whatever that parcel lover 2 is? That is the east north/ south boundary. Leslie: We are annexing the highway in the same process. The annexation has been handled by the City Attorney's office and the Engineering Dept. We are just doing the rezoning of it. Bruce: Asked for comments from the public. Joe Zoline: I must say first of all that I received this notice a couple of weeks ago. Up to that time I had no knowledge of this proceeding. As a matter of fact when I read the public notice I was startled because it referred to annexation of the Zoline piece of property. Then when I examined the file I saw it was the former Zoline parcel. ~,..,,,'- In a very real sense the parcel as it is still belongs to Parks by virtue of a deed of trust to the Zoline Foundation which was the seller of the property to the City. And the terms of the transaction were, as we thought anyway, extremely favorable to the City. But left some security questions that I think were never contemplated at that time that there would be leaks. Now you are proposing annexation. And the interest of the Zoline Foundation which is a charitable foundation- -it's interests are such that I think there are a number of questions that should be answered. For example, one of the provisions of the arrangement or sale from the Zoline Foundation to the City was that if the City never defaulted the payment of its obligations under the promissory note and deed of trust the City may not be personally held responsible or ____ that obligation which means that the only resort that the Foundation would have by some strange misfortune the City should not continue to pay the balance of the sale price. ~- So that the Foundation would be hard put to realize what is coming to us if there ever should be that kind of default. What it means here is that the property which has been sold to the City subject to this deed of trust goes into default the Foundation would have lost it's funds to a very substantial degree because there is still--the plain fact is that the City owes the Foundation at this point more than the City has thus far paid on it's side. So that let's say some __?___ happened 8 years down the road. The obtaining of that property in a foreclosure would be virtually worthless because the things that the Foundation would be unable to do as open space would certainly mean that the transaction had failed in a very real way and against an organization which was attempting to favor the City and would now be faced with an asset worth nothing. p" ,,""~ "-..- 9 PZM7.19.94 ..""""",,, Roger: Mr. Zoline, you are concerned this zoning to open space is a down zoning and if your foundation should have to recover the property it is not the same property as you sold to the City. Zoline: That is right. Tim: Do you have something you would like to propose that would satisfy the interest and the needs of your Foundation in the future if it does regain the ownership of this property through default? Zoline: I haven't had an awful long time to think about that. But it does occur to me that it would be something that if the annexation takes place perhaps there could be a provision in the papers that would be binding in the future which would say" If the annexation takes place that the zoning would be re-arranged so that it would be no different after said recovery of the property than it was at the time the original transaction took place". That way the Foundation would not have the force to suffer a tremendous loss if that were done. Marta: I would be curious to know whether this property is actually being used as security for the death of ___?___ to the Foundation. Zoline: It is. Marta: Do you know if there is anything in the language of the documents which addresses this issue? ""._'- Zoline: No. I don't know that. that addresses this question. I don't believe there is anything Sara: It might be in there that we can't rezone until it is paid for. Tim: We should have language that says that Mr. Zoline's Foundation is protected if there is some kind of default through some catastrophe- -can be reversed in order to give them back the property. Roger: I would feel better if Mr. Zoline had a chance to deal with the City Attorney and make sure we have all of this worked out so that his Foundation is protected before we continue on this. We need assistance from the City Attorney on how to address this situation. MOTION Roger: I move to table the rezoning of the Zoline open space property until we get instructions from the City Attorney as to how to proceed as to the protection of the Zoline Foundation should the property be put in default. Include in my motion that we will continue the public hearing to the regular meeting on the 16th of August, 1994. Sara seconded the motion with all in favor. ,,~ "'-" 10 ..- PZM7.19.94 '- TEMPORARY OVERLAY TO REDUCE FAR Leslie made presentation at attached in record. What this resolution is asking the Planning & Zoning Commission to do is pass on to City Council a recommendation for overlay zone district. And that overlay zone district we are recommending will be in place until February 19, 1995. The purpose of this is not a size reduction. and get a handle on the new development that context with the surrounding neighborhood. The purpose is to try is out there and not in Bruce opened the public hearing and asked for public comment. "",,-. Laurie Winnerman: I live at 217 Park Avenue and I am looking at your east side guideline scales. We were concerned about what you are trying to do. It looks piecemeal. For example we own a lot on east Ute Avenue mumble And I am a little nervous because a lot of these things that I heard at an outcome with my architect yesterday is that it is rather arbitrary and capricious as to what you are able to do. I will give you an example. We were asked by the planner after we went through P&Z that we save as many trees as we can. We diligently pursued moving the house enough to save 200 year old trees. And then the P&Z said to my architect "We approve your new plan. We think you have done a nice job" and turned it over to staff. Staff not only turned us down cold but they refuse any discussion about it. -- I am having a real problem with all these hearings and three people can be design police especially when we have tried so hard to try to be responsible citizens and get something done that accommodates all of these conditions. And now it happens that they increase these conditions. And I am looking and it says to me in the east side neighborhood that if I do a home I have to look at the little miner's cottages that are around me where people lived in 1,000 square feet. And my building currently calls for 2,200 square feet above grade. I have to tell you that if you live in anything now with 2 children and 2 adults that 2,200 square feet above grade is barely liveable. And now we are talking about how we have to redesign to the miner's cottage. Amy Amidon, Historical Planner: You are actually in the Smuggler Mountain neighborhood, not east Aspen neighborhood. Winnerman: OK. Well that even talks more about miner's cottages. Amidon: It talks more about scale but-- Winnerman: I am just trying to say that design policemen is getting out of control and if you, as a group, feel that we need to save trees for instance on my lot on Ute Avenue and I do everything to comply which also cost me hundreds of more dollars to try to save a tree which -- -- 11 /.-.. PZM7.19.94 -' I believe in and then staff overrides anything that you guys have said. I am kind of lost here. To me it is just more problems that you are going to create. And I want to know what is the point and purpose? Who has offended you that you have done this? Amidon: I will do my slide show again. I think walking around town there are a lot of houses that are focused entirely on what they would like to create on their own site and disregard what is around them, what is in the neighborhood, the scale. They create voluminous spaces that do nothing more than alienate pedestrians, scale. I don't think they have a lot to do with what Aspen's traditional character is like. Winnerman: I live in a very transitional neighborhood. I live in a neighborhood that really is mostly miner's cabins and really old time locals only ability to live in this town. Now 1,000 square feet to 2,000 square feet is really not something that--certainly work with design but I think you have to be realistic. The west end is already created. There are obviously some problems that have--maybe 2 houses in the west end that are out of scale. The west end was a prestigious neighborhood of wealthy people in the nineteen hundreds. My neighborhood wasn't. Obviously people are coming to this neighborhood now and try to upscale where they can in terms of either design but they are certainly not going to go 1,000 square feet again. ,,"'''-'' Amidon: By no means are we trying to ask people to build a thousand or two thousand square feet. We are asking you to design something that has the appearance of being broken down into small forms rather than a 3,000 square foot block. We are asking for you just to use some design skills to relate to your surroundings a little bit better. ",...."r' winnerman: I am telling you I can build 2,200 square feet and mine is the typical lot. If you look at the City map the average lot is 6,000 feet. I guess my other concern really is what is happening me on Ute Park right now is that P&Z sits here and says to our architect "Please save these trees". And then we do it and staff overrides us without a conversation. I need to know here. I need to clout? Can they override you? anything that you do. see that from P&Z--do you have any I want to know if they can override Bruce: The answer to that is "No". The matter of your 8040 Greenline Review is not subject to this hearing. I am sorry. I don't mean to try and put you off. Winnerman: In the overlay. That is all I am asking you. Leslie: Every zone district that could be R-15b zone district is in the overlay. - Bruce: Everything within the City limits. But if you have a problem with the 8040 Greenline Review approval that you have already received '- 12 "-, PZM7.19.94 '",,- you come back at something other than this public hearing on this overlay that we are talking about. Winnerman: My point is that if you guys give a recommendation whether on this overlay for us on this buildout then what my fear is that we have 2 people that can say "Not according to my eyes". Bruce: Staff always has the option to for example with this body tonight, decided that we didn't approve this resolution, staff always has the option then to go ahead and present that to City Council. And the reverse of that is true as well. If we approve it and it goes to City Council they can turn it down. We will make some sort of recommendation about this overlay--to approve it or not approve it tonight and then it supposedly goes to City Council as presented by staff. Winnerman: I understand what you are saying. I want you all to recognize what I am saying. That is that this has become a design police committee. And I think that some people just have a bad taste about how much power they have. And that there are a lot of people that live here that in working with all local architects maybe you need to get on the architects and help them. Bruce: Good suggestion. ..,,"...... Roger: To add to our concern I talk with some architects from time to time and one of their problems with HPC is that they will go before HPC at one time and there is this group of HPC members and they recommend some changes. Then they come back and the complexion has changed on HPC and that mix has a different idea. So they end up in limbo back and forth and I would hate to see this type of thing happen. It generally doesn't happen wi th the P&Z. I have heard this often from enough architects to think that there is a problem with that committee. '-- Leslie: I don't think what we are striving for is an overall design review over the City over every piece of property. I think we have to really work on numbers and standards. What I heard from this Board after spending an hour and a half on the Winnerman proposal at the end of Ute Avenue which 2 of you voted down is the standards weren't strong enough for you to say "It is too big". That is why I would like to work on a slope FAR reduction on the river so we don't get these towering straight walls over the river. We do something like Hallam Lake that requires people to step back. I think Laurie is right when you get into just straight design review without strong standards or even strong dimensional requirements then you get into those criticisms for those concerns. Jake Vickery, Architect: These neighborhood character guidelines were suggested or mandated in the AACP. And the HPC spent the last 2 years with their consultant developing the guidelines. The resolution you have before you is really the next step in this process of implementing ~,.- ,~-' 13 PZM7.19.94 -,- what was mandated in the AACP by forming an ordinance which sets up the guidelines and puts them into effect. The idea that there is currently an allowable FAR and by in concept backing off this 20% and then giving it back to people who are willing to kind of meet a higher standard and participating in the community character which we hope everyone would do, I think that in it's simplest form is what is trying to happen here. It is important to remember these are neighborhood character guidelines, that they are urban design guidelines. They are not architectural guidelines out of individual projects and trying to bring a relationship out of them and to build a streetscape and a pedestrian friendly environment. And if people are totally focused and their priorities are based on how big their closet space is, how big their entry is and all these kind of things that are individual to their parcel without some sort of scrutiny or establishment of some kind of priority for the overall town and streetscape. That is the whole purpose of this resolution I believe. There were no further public comments. MOTION Sara: I move to adopt Resolution #q4-'t recommending to City Council an overlay zone district in all zone districts of the City of Aspen except the R-15b zone district for a period of 7 months until February ~- 1995. Steve seconded the motion. Bruce: I am going to vote against the motion for reasons that I have stated in other meetings previously. I think we have admirable intentions. I think we are trying to correct some things that I think are wrong with our City and our community. I don't think this is the proper way to do it. The other thing that concerns me is that admittedly at the last City Council meeting where these items were considered they had a split and it was an even number of Council persons. But, in effect, Council said "This is not an emergency and therefore we don't want to take emergency action by virtue of the 2 to 2 split. By voting in favor of this resolution we, in effect, are saying We think it is an emergency and therefore at this very moment in time that this passes we are putting the clamps down". I just can't support doing that. happening in town. I think we need to address neighborhood character. overlay is the way to do it. I am against the things that are to address bulk. I think we need I don't think that an emergency Marta: I also will be voting against it. I like the idea that we -. '.......- 14 - ...... ~',"--- ~- ..- -, ',",,-' PZM7.19.94 are concerned about our town and that there is a lot of work that is going to be put into trying to figure out how we can look at scale, how we can keep the character in tact. I am not a proponent of a special review where people will be asked to look at the design and make value judgements on whether they do or do not meet the character of the neighborhood I am more a proponent of having objective guidelines whether it is scale, bulk, mass and setbacks. People can look at it and say "OK this is what I am going to design around" . It is also in fear of people who have maybe just bought a piece of property and really can't afford to go through this period where they have got to design, re-design, go to special meetings. They all know how difficult it is to come to us, to HPC. It basically puts a moratorium on them for a year until objective guidelines come out as to what they can or cannot do with their property. I will be very happy to work with people toward getting objective guidelines set up. But I also feel this is not the way to go. Sara: People have property rights but there is an older riding right and that is why there l.S such a thing as a Planning & Zoning Commission. That is the rights of the community. And I have sat on this Commission for 4 years and I cannot go through the heartbreak, because it is within code, of seeing another Ralph Braden, another Mike Garrish replacement, and a Winnerman blocking of the river from the public because according to what the code says they can do that. I feel we do not feel we get good review either by committee. And that is why I asked again to have staff clarify to us that design review is only a 7 month measure for people that want to come in over the 80%. It may and probably will not be the final answer. We have to have things codified. But meanwhile within the 7 months we can get 4 more Mike Garrish replacements. And I can't agree to sit on the Commission with respect to what is happening. Roger: I have to agree with Sara. I understand the dislike for this kind of action but occasionally I think it is justified. What I like about this action is that it is not a moratorium first of all. We are saying that if anyone wants to go up 80% of the allowable FAR, pullout your building permit and do it, folks. And I am willing to compromise FAR with the way it is defined and the way we attempt to get a volume formula in at this point. We agree that there is a problem of some buildings being built that just appear to be terribly over scale either for the neighborhood or the immediate surrounding neighbors. So I will support this motion. I don't like design by committee either. And ultimately I would like to stay away from that. However I have always been a promoter of a 2- tier system saying whether it is FAR, I prefer bulk, that under a certain level, fine, let people go for it. There is a certain level that I believe that I don't care how "ugly" it is to someone's point of view, if it is small enough it won't overpower it's neighbor. 15 - PZM7.19.94 -- Tim: I am going to support Sara. I don't know if it is a change for me to take a conservative approach. But this is getting out of hand as far as I can see. I don't think that the best interests of the community are being displayed with a lot of the most recent develop- ment, most recent design, a lot of the most recent motives for living in this community. The essence of the value of living here is being really squashed. We are on the verge of being a second class community and it definitely a second class resort because individual' s motives for capitalizing on the number one real estate market in the country are ahead of the values of the community. And that is too bad. I basically feel that this is at the staff's request. The staff feels like they need the time to produce better information for us to work with. I have to agree t.o give them all the time they need to formulate whatever rules and regulations we need to keep the community in tact. The resort and the resort atmosphere, resort values are very much endangering the life-style of the community. And I am worried about that. So I am going to give the staff as much rein as they need to take the time to formulate a way to get a handle on it. ."- Bruce: I would comment regarding staff. I know you guys have worked and are overburdened at times but at the end of the 7 months if we do nothing more than extend an arbitrary sort of temporary 20% reduction in FAR and we haven't really addressed what we all know what the problem is--the bulk, character and all of that--in a permanent way, I will fight it then much more strongly then than I am now. .. ''-I......... I am hopeful that the 7 months will give us the time to do what we need to do to really address the problem. I don't think we are doing that with this. So I am just hoping that in 7 months we really will have legislation that will address what I think all of us share are the common problems in town. I just don't believe. this is the way to solve it and I hope that 7 months from now we have got the way to solve it. There being no further comment Bruce closed the public hearing. Roll call vote: yes, Bruce, no. Steven, yes, Marta, no, Tim, yes, Sara, yes, Roger, MOTION Sara: I move to recommend to City Council approval of the adopted resolution #___ series of 1994. Steve seconded the motion. Roll call vote: yes, Bruce, no. Steven, yes, Marta, no, Tim, yes, Sara, yes, Roger, - 16 PZM7.19.94 -- KAJX CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW SATELLITE DISH CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING Leslie: Made presentation as attached in record. Roger: Because I had been the most apprehension about this with the story poles up there the point at which it was most obvious was where it could be screened the easiest. That is along the eastern side. Where it is most obvious from is the entry to Clark's parking lot. I can deal with the 12 foot 6 inch dish if necessary providing that it is satisfactorily screened on that end. I think then that it would be perfectly fine. Architect: if there is be happy to And if when we get through with the plants we put up there still something that you still find objectionable we will complement that with more trees. Marta: Did you ask ACES whether it had any effect at all on them? Arch: I walked down there and I didn't really see that--it is fairly dense down there with a lot of layers of Cottonwoods and Aspens. Sy Coleman: Also in response to your concerns we are going to be covering it with this stuff so it is not going to be white. It is ~- going to blend into the ground because of the coloration of the canopy. We can paint the back side of it any color we want. We can paint it "'''''' any color that is deemed appropriate. Sara: I agree with Roger. With the landscaping and cover I don't think people will even know it is there. Sy: We are proud to be putting in a few trees in an otherwise desolate spot. Leslie: I heard from Jim Sparborrow who is a neighbor right on the corner. He had been in contact with me about the dish when he received his public notice. His only concern was the location and to have vegetation cover. Marta: I heard from a few neighborhood people who were opposed to a dish in the neighborhood. They said it is a residential area. They don't want a giant dish there. I urged them to walk past the posts. They asked me to convey that. They flat out didn't want a dish. MOTION Roger: I move to approve the conditional use of a dish for KAJX behind the red brick school and conditioned on #1 through #3 of the Planning Office memo dated July 5, 1994. (attached in record) Leslie reviewed the conditions and then added a 4th. "The applicant '- 17 /~"-""" PZM7.19.94 '-- shall comply with all representations made at the July 19, 1994 public hearing and everything they have submitted since July 5, 1994. Roger: I will add condition #4 to my motion. Bruce then closed the public hearing. Sara seconded the motion with all in favor except Marta. MOTION Roger: I move to table action on the Creektree Subdivision and continue the public hearing to date certain of August 19, 1994 at the request of the applicant. Marta seconded the motion with all in favor. INDEPENDENCE PLACE SPA DESIGNATION AND CONCEPTUAL SPA PLAN MOTION Roger: I move to table action and continue the public hearing on Independence Place SPA designation and conceptual SPA plan to date certain of September 20, 1995 at the request of staff and the applicant. Sara: What does that mean? Because Jim Curtis asked for an August 1st deadline from Council so he knew ? Kraut or not. Leslie: What this means is any meeting on this proj ect we will completely re-notice everybody. It has been so far out we don't expect people to keep track of something like this. The reason we tabled it to September 20th is that we are pretty sure that we will know exactly what we are doing by then. We are having a breakfast meeting with Council and the applicant. There have been a series of letters going back and forth trying to clarify issues and where Council stands on certain issues and the applicants are trying to decide whether they still have a project. Sara: Will Jim Curtis have an answer by August 1st then? Leslie: August 1st is also pressing Council as a deadline. Council is giving the money for the Kraut Property. Jim Curtis has been up front with them about the deadlines and how much it will cost for them to change horses in the middle of the stream. They are having this meeting Thursday morning in order to be able to know what to do with the Kraut property by August 1st. Council has always said this is a big project. We are not going to decide in favor of this project just because of the Kraut property. .-- 18 - .'--- ,- '- ~- '-"" PZM7.19.94 If we do go forward on September 20 or another meeting it will be completely re-noticed because it will be a different project. But we can't close the public hearing because we can't close the GMQS application that they submitted. Everyone then voted in favor of the motion. Bruce then adjourned the meeting. 19