HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19950502
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
-
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
MAY 2. 1995
Chairman Bruce Kerr called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
Answering roll call were Roger Hunt, Sara Garton. Tim Mooney, Marta
Chaikovska, Steve Buettow and Bruce Kerr. Excused were Jasmine
Tygre and Robert Blaich.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
There were no comments.
STAFF COMMENTS
.
Leslie Lamont asked if the commission understood the upcoming
agendas; on May 16th at 4:00 p.m., there will be a joint P&Z Growth
Management Commission Review of the Waterplace Affordable Housing
Project. She stated that was set up in the GMQS amendments that
affordable housing projects in the metro area are reviewed by the
joint P&Zs. Basically, the review criteria is the same used for
scoring, although you do not score, you pass on recommendations to
Council for the GMQS Exemption. Garton asked, is affordable
housing never scored? Lamont answered, it is never scored.
Buettow asked to be excused from the Joint P&Z Growth Management
Commission Review as he said he would have to step down anyway, due
to conflict of interest. Chairman Kerr stated it was fine with him.
Buettow would be at the regular meeting which starts following at
5:00 p.m.
Hunt requested the Buckhorn and Independence Place applicants to
be put earlier on the agenda as he was leaving the following
morning early and if he had to leave early he did not want to miss
those particular proposals.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were none.
MINUTES
Hunt moved to adopt the minutes of 18 and 25 April, 1995. Kerr
moved for amended minutes of April 25, 1995 regarding the Farish
Hallam Lake Memorandum. He requested to include comments by Gideon
Kaufman. Garton seconded, vote was unanimous in favor, motion
carried.
..
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
MAY 2. 1995
MOORE CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR AN ACCESSORY
DWELLING UNIT AND STREAM MARGIN REVIEW
Chairman Kerr opened the public hearing.
Leslie Lamont presented for staff and asked applicant Moore to
submit to the clerk the Affidavit of Public Notice (attached in
record) . She introduced applicants Gary and Debra Moore and
architect, Stuart Lousk. She stated the Moore's were proposing to
build a single-family home with an above grade accessory dwelling
unit on the bend on the river at Oklahoma Flats. She stated they
are proposing to build an approximate 4,150 sq. ft. home, with a
500 sq. ft. garage and utilize a 250 sq. ft. bonus that they gain
by proposing an accessory dwelling above grade.
".-.....
She gave a little history of the project; it went through a Design
Review by the Overlay Review Committee. The review was mandatory.
After submitting the application for Stream Margin Review
Conditional Use, the applicants went to the Board of Adjustment
requesting a 7-1/2 ft. front-yard setback variance so they could
pull the house closer to their front yard and away from a grove of
cottonwood trees which is on the site plan. The Overlay Committee
recommended, based on guidelines, that the application was
inconsistent and should adhere more to staff's recommendations.
The Board of Adjustment tabled making a decision on the variance
request. One reason was the Board wanted the project to come
before Planning and Zoning Commission for Stream Margin Review.
-
She gave a correction to her memorandum. Her real emphasis in the
conditions of approval on the Stream Margin Review are the bands
of cottonwoods. The Moore's are working with a parcel which
received stream margin approval several years ago, however, since
the code has been changed and three years have passed, staff has
determined that they do not have vested rights and had to come back
through the stream margin review process. She stated one important
thing is the way that staff has significantly changed the stream
margin review criteria; they now require a 15 ft. setback from the
top of the bank. This project is minimum 28 ft. setback from the
top of the bank, because of the shaping of the home. She stated
they have a site plan showing where there are different lines at
the top of the bank. She stated on page 8 of her memorandum, her
biggest concern and the reason the Moore's went to the Board of
Adjustment, is the attempt to try and save, as much as possible,
the band of cottonwood trees. In Condition #3: Prior to the
issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall submit a
revised site plan for review by the Planning, Engineering and Parks
staff. The revised site plan shall include: a) a new building
envelope that reduces the envelope on the river's side by another
2.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
MAY 2. 1995
5 ft. She said she, the applicants, and George Robinson of the
Parks Department met on the site and talked about revision to their
building envelope that attempts to save more trees. She said the
revision is on the site plan to be shown. It did not make sense
to require a total 5 ft. setback, and the difficulty is in the
center of the home and a cluster of cottonwoods there.
Lamont stated she really had no issues with the accessory dwelling
unit; the plans that were submitted show that the accessory
dwelling unit may have exceeded the 700 sq. ft. limit, which is 700
FAR. The applicants have told Lamont that they have revised the
accessory dwelling unit and now it is a net liveable size of 650.
She said they needed to work with Bill Drueding to make sure they
are calculating the area correctly and the accessory dwelling unit
does not exceed 700 sq. ft. Even though the accessory dwelling
unit is 700 sq. ft., the maximum of the bonus they will receive is
250.
Buettow asked with the tabling of the variance at the Board of
Adjustment, will it be carried on or is it a proper procedure to
look at the final site plan when there are changes to come? Lamont
answered that with the original proposal that went before the Board
of Adjustment, it did not change the footprint of the layout of the
home, it just took the whole home and pulled it 7-1/2 ft. closer.
But, after today, and the site visit, they have changed the back
side of the building envelope to protect more of the trees in the
back and middle, without moving the building forward.
."......-,
She stated she had a letter which she felt should be read for the
record, since the Moore's had not seen it. Chairman Kerr read the
letter from Denise Reich, property owner directly across the street
from the site, opposing building of the home and its impact on the
entire area of Oklahoma Flats (attached in record) .
Applicant, Gary Moore, answered to the letter from Denise Reich
stating that Reich's house encroaches approximately 7 to 7-1/2 ft.
towards Spring Street. He said, concerning the 700 sq. ft., he
said his plan does not add 700 sq. ft. total to the whole package.
The area of the accessory dwelling unit is within the total square
footage of the home, and it is down to 650 sq. ft. He stated he
is trying to work as closely with everyone as he can. Another
reason for asking for the 250 sq. ft. bonus, is that they do not
have the luxury of having any low-grade space on the property.
They are taking that additional square footage and putting it into
a third bay in the garage. It is causing Moore to spread out the
footprint because they are not allowed sub-grade space for storage,
etc. Moore stated he has tried to follow all rules, regulations,
and guidelines for each committee they have gone to and tried to
make changes requested by the Design Overlay Review Committee and
Stream Margin Review, but he said he felt pushed from both
~
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
MAY 2. 1995
directions. He said they have redesigned corners and fit things
in to try and make everyone happy. Since going in for a variance,
which was to move the house away from the grouping of trees along
the river, and that variance being denied, they decided to follow
the request of the Planning Department to stay away from that area.
He showed the site plan to the Commission with the assistance of
outlines on the property.
He showed where the impact on the trees has been reduced. Prior
to this meeting, he said he submitted two packages for tree
mitigation on the property. One was denied, the second one was
approved based upon pulling the house back for the variance. He
stated he understood that he could not build without removing any
trees, but he said they were trying the best they could not to
touch a lot of them. He explained the variance request with use
of the site plan, the location of Denise Reich's house, and said
the variance was no longer an issue. Kerr asked if Moore could
live without the variance at this point, based on the present plan
and Moore stated, he could. Hunt asked about the access to the
property across Spring Street, and Moore stated his neighbor
parked on Spring Street and showed it on the map. Another issue
required in Moore's package by the Engineering Department, is that
since the right-of -ways in the area are so small, parking is
required for the ADU unit. That is the reason for a third bay in
the garage; to have more cars off the street.
Chaikovska asked if the site plan reduced the envelope on the river
side by 5 ft. or was it an additional 5 ft. Moore answered, no,
it was not adding and showed on the map. She asked if that
impacted the building, and Moore stated, no, it did not, in certain
areas. She stated, would you have to redesign it, and Moore
answered, yes, again. Chaikovska asked what was the purpose of the
5 ft. that he wanted. Lamont answered that her recommendation for
the 5 ft. was to take it out of line of the building envelope, and
pull it in 5 ft. to give greater protection to the band of trees,
and she and Moore showed the gray area on the map where the
building envelope used to be.
Moore stated that since he was only digging to frost line, and the
ground was fairly easy to dig, he could cut pretty clean banks;
digging 3-4 ft. depending on the soil. In some areas he might have
to dig 5 ft., but since he will be digging a pretty small bank he
can keep the cut pretty close to the foundation line. Normally one
does an overdig of 2-3 feet, and in some of these cases, he said
he could stay closer, perhaps a foot and a half away from the
foundation line.
Hunt asked if setting the house back 5 more feet accomplish
anything, except the possibility of the survivability of two trees
(in one particular area of map). George Robinson of the Parks
.1
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
MAY 2. 1995
Department stated that moving the house out an extra 5 ft. out
gives trees a much higher success. He stated he had worked for 6-
7 years with the city and he has never seen anyone such as Moore
who has tried to redesign their house around trees so many times
to save them. Hunt asked if Robinson saw a great end accomplished
by another 5 ft. over what has been done already. Robinson stated
that looking at the plan, and knowing no matter where one excavates
around trees, they will be impacted somewhat; looking at the
healthy trees they could save possibly one hundred caliber inches
in trees by Moore setting the house back 5 ft. If any trees do
die, he stated Moore would still be responsible for them.
He stated it is still a chance to save 100 inches of trees by doing
what Moore has done that is approximately 10 trees. Buettow
asked how many of the 5-6 trees between the green line (on map)
and building envelope would survive. Moore said it would be close
depending on how the dig goes, where the roots are, and what type
of crowns the trees have. Buettow stated that perhaps two of the
trees would be impacted.
Chairman Kerr asked for public comment; there was none. He closed
the public hearing.
Moore said in regard to the ADU, he was not at the maximum FAR.
We are at 4,242 sq. ft. FAR. Kerr asked what the proposed usage
of the ADU was. Moore said it was for interim housing for his
wife's parents when visiting, and later on, will be a nice rental
unit. Kerr asked if Moore had any problems with any of the
conditions in staff's memorandum. Moore stated he had none,
whatsoever.
Kerr asked Lamont in Condition #3-a, was she referring to an
additional 5 ft? She stated she would change the language to say,
"the revised building envelope as presented at the Planning &
Zoning Commission that reduces the envelope on the river side".
Garton stated not to mention the footage because it is not 5 ft.
in some areas.
MOTION
Hunt moved to approve the conditional use and stream margin review
for Lot 1 & 2 South 1/2 of Lot 3, Block 1, Oklahoma Flats with
conditions 1-5 on Planning Office memorandum dated May 2, 1995,
pertaining to the ADU; with conditions 1-11 on Planning Office
memorandum dated May 2, 1995 pertaining to the stream margin
review, with the modification of 3-a to read: " the revised new
building envelope as presented at Planning & Zoning that reduces
the envelope on the river side". Garton seconded, vote was
unanimous in favor, motion carried.
.2.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
MAY 2. 1995
Kerr asked if it was still necessary to go before the Board of
Adjustment. Debra Moore answered it was not necessary, but an
adjustment of even 2-1/2 to 3 ft. would help. She stated she
would like to go the the Board of Adjustment and reduce footage
they were requesting. It would take care of any of the trees that
are in question. Chairman Kerr asked if there were any members of
the commission that would be opposed to an incringement of 2-1/2
to 3 ft. There were no objections and Kerr asked staff to relay
that there were no objections from P&Z to the Board of Adjustment.
ASPEN THEATRE IN THE PARK
FINAL SPA
Chairman Kerr opened the public hearing.
"-
Kim Johnson represented on behalf of staff, and asked Carol
Lowenstern, representing applicant, to submit for the record the
Affidavit of Public Notice (attached in record). Johnson stated
this was a final SPA Plan and Special Review for Parking for the
Aspen Theatre in the Park. Johnson said she had been processing
their yearly approvals through staff's temporary use permit
process, because the applicant was unable to come in for full SPA.
Given the amount of time it takes, it always seemed their season
caught up with them, and they needed some immediate solution to
their tent correction every year. The theatre tent is erected in
May and removed in September of each year. This year, Johnson said,
they wanted to get a headstart, and she stated staff does support
this final SPA Plan with its accessory reviews.
There are a couple of issues that are presented in the memorandum,
both from Planning and Parks' perspective; they are, parking of
non-central service vehicles in the parking and service area, and
a year-round storage situation, including everything from
legitimate prop materials to construction debris. Johnson stated
staff has conditioned the approval with specific conditions
regarding continued diligence of the parking situation, requiring
them to promptly clean up the site after each summer season, and
prohibition against storage and materials on site. Johnson stated
she and Carol Lowenstern spoke previously and there are some
options the applicant can pursue later as an amendment to approval.
She said the proposal is consistent with the 1993 Rio Grande
Masterplan which Johnson reviewed in processing this plan.
Kerr asked if Johnson was placing the burden of parking enforcement
on applicant. Johnson replied that she was putting the applicant
on notice that it is an issue, and if felt by staff, City Parks,
and Planning and Zoning that it is a continued on-going thing, that
Theatre in Parks will have to be called back for discussion. Kerr
'-
~
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
MAY 2. 1995
asked if the applicant will call police department if someone is
parking illegally, or notify their suppliers. Johnson stated that
perhaps Lowenstern had more insight, but employees, instead of
parking in the Rio Grande Parking Garage or along Rio Grande Place,
park next to the tent area. Johnson said, according to the
language in the Rio Grande Masterplan, the area is for central
delivery-type service and handicapped parking to be used during
performances, and only when necessary for delivery.
Kerr stated that what he was getting at was; staff is not requiring
applicant to provide some kind of parking mitigation plan that must
be reviewed periodically, but instead, is saying, don't do this
kind of thing, don't let it happen, and if it does, you are subject
to us looking at it again if someone complains. Otherwise, there
really is no enforcement mechanism. Johnson agreed, stating, I
guess so, unless the commission could offer some more internal
suggestions. Lowenstern stated that if one person is ticketed
once, no one would park there. She said Aspen Theatre in the Park
really tries to keep people from parking illegally, but
occasionally someone will go into the tent thinking they will be
there for a few minutes and stays there an hour and their car sits
there. She felt ticketing would be appropriate. Kerr stated he
was not suggesting more, he said he was trying to make sure of the
understanding.
Hunt said he wondered if the accessway to that area should be
_. posted "no parking", except for handicapped and active delivery.
Garton stated that if posted, then it could be ticketed, and she
felt that was important. George Robinson of Parks stated he felt
signings would help a lot, and Lowenstern agreed.
Kerr asked if the applicant had a presentation to make and
Lowenstern stated she did not. Kerr asked if she had read the
conditions of approval and she stated she had, and had no problems
with them. Chuck Roth of Engineering asked regarding wiring and
it not being underground. Garton asked if the lights were from a
generator or off the power pole. It was stated there were some
wires in the air and the electric source was a transformer in a
shed, from the power pole, to the wooden shed, and then into the
tent. Lowenstern stated there were some wires in tubing that go
into the back of the tent. Kerr asked Roth if that was the only
place around the Rio Grande that has overhead, and was everything
else underground. Roth stated, yes, it was the only place that had
overhead. Hunt stated that he thought it was most likely telephone
wiring as opposed to an electical drop.
There were no public comments and Chairman Kerr closed the public
hearing.
2
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
MAY 2. 1995
MOTION
Hunt moved to recommend approval of the SPA Amendment and Special
Review for Parking, GMQS Exemption for an Essential Public Facility
for the Theatre in the Park with Conditions 1-5 on Planning Office
memorandum dated 2 May 1995 and an additional Condition #6; if
there are overhead utilities, they should be underground. Garton
seconded, vote was unanimous with all in favor with 6 conditions;
motion carried.
Discussion of Motion
Clarification was asked of Condition #1 regarding signage of the
road. Johnson stated she had written some language and could read
it; Kerr asked her to do so. "The parking area and roadway shall
be signed for handicap access and service delivery only, and shall
not be used for access drive". Hunt stated he would so accept that
in the motion.
Kerr asked if Aspen Theatre in the Park would put up the signs and
pay for the signs? Johnson asked Robinson of the Parks Department
if Parks had signs to put up, or do they buy them. Robinson stated
they could work with the applicant regarding the signs and usually
the applicant pays for the signs. As far as placement
and installation, Parks would confer with the applicant.
_.
Chaikovska asked regarding the wiring and questioned the expense.
She stated the commission was putting in the condition without even
knowing where it is, and said, perhaps it should be modified to see
what the applicant is up against.
Garton addressed Robinson's memorandum, Exhibit A, to the
applicant. The memorandum asked if there were any proposals to
improve any of the facilities, such as the portable housing toilet,
the electrical panel housing and storage area. Lowenstern stated
there hasn't been. Garton asked if staff thought that portable
toilets and all are fine? It was stated that it was a temporary
thing and Garton asked, how do we know that? Johnson stated,
temporary meaning, not used all year round, and probably would not
make financial sense to install plumbing. Robinson added that
there have been a few improvements but not represented on the map.
Garton asked if the Parks Department was responsible for the
maintenance of the Snowmelt area by a trail. Robinson stated it
had been turfed and rocks put in front of the tent area.
Garton asked regarding no maintenance issues, such as irrigation
and turf, being addressed. Robinson stated he was basically asking
in his memorandum if applicant planned any more improvements in
irrigation, and if applicant still planned on mowing as they have
!!
".....--
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
MAY 2. 1995
historically, and if they wanted that donated to the city. If so,
the Parks Department needed to know that, and it was there for
coordination. Lowenstern stated she would relay the this to the
the Theatre and its committee.
Mooney asked staff if there was any way, under the guidelines of
the SPA, that the Theatre in the Park could be used for anything
else; for any other event, meeting, or sub-lease or any other
activity that could happen. He was concerned about any change in
philosophy or change in process. Johnson said she would say, no.
Representations have been made in their letters that it is for some
performances, for so many weeks of the year, even times of the day,
that they are presented. In the off hours, there are sets up and
Johnson said it is not like a vacant stage that could be rented
out. Lowenstern stated that perhaps there were some days in August
where it could happen.
Chairman Kerr closed the public hearing.
CITY OF ASPEN/GOLF MAINTENANCE FACILITY
CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT
GMOS EXEMPTION & CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW
'~
Leslie Lamont presented on behalf of staff and stated that the
Parks Department is requesting an expansion of their office and
maintenance facility. The zone district is Park with a PUD
overlay, therefore, it requires either insubstantial or substantial
review. Staff has determined, and the Parks Department has
requested, this be considered a substantial review; typically,
substantial reviews are a two-step process, but Parks has requested
a full four-step review process - doing conceptual P&Z City Council
and then final P&Z and City Council. Lamont stated that is why
this meeting is technically not a public hearing. Lamont stated
that the meeting would be just a conceptual review of the proposal
and she said that at the end of her memorandum she outlined several
threshold issues she felt the commission could give guidance to the
Parks Department on. Basically, she said the applicants are
proposing to expand their existing office space by an additional
1,000 sq. ft. and they are proposing to construct a maintenance
storage facility of about 9,000 sq. ft. The proposal in the
application is one that has been worked through with their
architect, neighborhood meetings, and one that they believe is the
best solution for them. However, they did start out with several
different ideas and several different designs. In addition, Lamont
attached to the memorandum, a letter from Bill Sharp with his
suggestion for a design for the maintenance building.
~
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
MAY 2. 1995
Lamont said the process is Conceptual PUD Review, which, as she
stated, is P&Z and City Council. When the application comes back
for final review, then the issue of Conditional Use Review will be
addressed. A Parks maintenance facility is a conditional use in
the Park zone district, and also the issue of GMQS Exemption will
be addressed. Staff is requesting GMQS exemption for the expansion
of an essential public facility. She stated the other item, as far
as GMQS exemption goes; essential public facilities are exempted
from the growth management competition process, but that does not
allow them eliminate any mitigation requirements primarily,
housing. Often people request to have their housing mitigated, and
at that time it will be the recommendation from P&Z to City Council
how housing should be done. She said she would identify that as
a kind of threshold issue to just get a sense of where the
commission wants to go with the application so the Parks Department
knows if they need to be thinking of housing or doing a little bit
more detailed analysis and survey for the commission. The
application states Parks is not hiring the employees, it is
basically just an area to store existing equipment, and to expand
the cramped office facilities that they do have.
"-
The other threshold issues identified were: Originally Parks was
talking about moving the entrance to the yard and the offices
further down Cemetery Lane. There is a real problem at the
Cemetery Lane intersection, and she stated that during the site
visit it was noticed that cars were backed up. She said there is
also a pedestrian bike path there which causes a dangerous
situation. Parks has withdrawn moving the entrance from the
application. at this time, but if the commission is so inclined,
there may be some presentation on that issue.
The Engineering Department has also recommended moving, where the
Parks Department originally proposed to move the entrance, even
further down. She stated that Bill Sharp could not be at the
meeting, so Bob Sharp was in attendance representing him.
Lamont stated the Parks Department would present some of their
different alternatives and she turned the presentation over to
George Robinson and Rebecca Baker of the Parks Department.
Robinson stated the first design was to try to design a building
that was minimum impact on the area and also meet the needs. It
was a two-story building and once the design was done Parks went
to the neighbors, put up poles with flags to represent the heighth
of it; taking into consideration the neighbors' views. One of the
big concerns was how it would impast the next door neighbor, Bill
Sharp. In looking at the design, the number one complaint was the
height of approximately 24 ft.
10
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
MAY 2. 1995
Robinson passed drawings of 5 alternative designs to the
commission. Mooney asked if perhaps the applicant should inquire
if the commission had any objections to the existing proposal
because Mooney did not know if the commission should go back and
study the things that have been eliminated. He asked if it was a
necessary part of the process. Kerr stated he, personally, would
like to look at all the options, including Mr. Sharp's option,
especially since it was just a conceptual review. Mooney stated
that was fine, he was ready.
In the second design, Robinson said the building was basically 24
ft., so they looked at taking and rounding off the building,
bringing it down to 21 ft. It was better, but still of concern to
the neighbors. They told the neighbors they would like to have
their input and ideas and they came up with a few. Basically, they
came up with eliminating the two-story building. They came up with
two buildings facing each other, which did not work with the
traffic or the flow of the machines, and did not hide the mass on
the maintenance facility from the golfers or the houses. They
looked at another design, an L-shape, which seemed to work out
real well. They also had designs where there was a real long
building configuration, but it still did not work.
with the Golf Department and the Parks Department on the site,
there are approximately 40-45 people hired. Also, those people are
on some type of a machine and when you get everyone there in the
'-., morning going in different ways, you have to have some type of
flow. On the L-shaped design from Bill Sharp, Robinson said they
took that and improved on it. He said they went to the PPRG
meeting, and there was not as many people there as they would have
liked, in so far as design consultants. As a result of that
meeting, Bill Sharp came back with another idea; pull up a little
closer to the building, keeping it two-story because it would keep
the noise away. After looking at it, they were still in the two-
story stage and would have to dig down, and did not leave a lot of
room where the office was. Where the building was situated, they
only had approximately 21 ft. to take a truck or piece of equipment
and make a radius, and it did not work with the flow of traffic.
Where he did agree with Sharp was that it would lesson the noise
down from his area.
He showed that on the exterior of the building, facing the golf
course, and Mr. Sharp's property, where they planned on putting
most of it to hide the building and add vegetation. He said the
office space is very crowded.
Garton asked if these were elevations or birds-eye-view of the
building (referring to drawing). Baker answered birds-eye-view.
Baker stated they hoped to come away from this meeting with the
building envelope and then show elevations later and more specific
11
~
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
MAY 2. 1995
designs. She said they were hesitant to come to the commission
with architectural renditions, and then realize that was not what
was wanted. They did not feel it was prudent to spend money on
architectural services and then redesign or relocate. Garton asked
regarding the shed that is next to the Pro Shop; was any equipment
kept there. Steve Aitken, Director of the Golf Course, answered
it is utilized in the summer to store golf carts, and because of
the lack of storage space, in the winter they have to move the golf
carts down valley and store other golf equipment into the compound.
Robinson said it stores some of the equipment, but not all.
Hunt asked on the drawing that lines showing Hwy. 82, should they
not be Cemetery Lane. Baker stated yes, that there was a mistake.
Mooney asked if the end of the page was the property line. Baker
stated, yes, the south side of it. Garton asked about the north
side. Baker stated, the north side, to about where the pond is,
is where it meets up with the Sharp property. He said Bill Sharp
was a wonderful volunteer and that Sharp's yard was gorgeous and
Parks tried to work with him in creating barriers. He stated he
did not have with him the exact boundary lines between Sharp's
property and the golf course.
....'''e.....
Chaikovska asked if Parks was proposing to house the electric golf
carts in the new facilities. Robinson stated, no. Chaikovska
asked if they needed the barn by where the cart barn is now.
Aitken stated, they would still need it. Robinson added that there
are still many things that they do not include as equipment, such
as, picnic tables, barrels, flower fences, that is not pleasant to
look at and needs storage. Chaikovska asked regarding two-story.
Robinson said the building they are proposing is one-story, but
they started out with two-stories. Chaikovska asked why they
needed two stories, was it a height requirement for storing
equipment or something on the second floor. Robinson said storage
space, and then try to condense the building itself. In talking
with the neighbors, they did not care for the heighth.
-
Lamont suggested Robinson go through each of the designs with the
commission and explain why it was decided not to use each plan
in order of the process.
The first alternative was a two-story building and they had
problems, not only with the height, but how to fit it in and make
it work without using some type of ramp to get to the second floor
or elevators. Garton asked if they were all new structures, were
they going to keep any of the existing structures. Robinson said
said the existing structure they would keep was the office, and he
showed the location on the design. He said they will add onto the
office. Chaikovska asked what the material would be of the
building. Baker stated the structure would look somewhat like a
covered bridge on the entrance to the facility, and Robinson said
12
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
MAY 2. 1995
the material would be a foam, with wire mesh on both sides and
concrete is blown on it. He said it was a stucco-looking type of
building; low maintenance. He stated Carbondale had a firehouse
that was recently just completed and it was constructed with this
type of material and he would get pictures.
Kerr said that on the entrance, all designs basically showed the
entrance moved, coming in and crossing the pond. Robinson
addressed that, stating the the main thought was to get away from
the center sections as there have been some close calls.
Efficiency in getting in and out appeared to be more of an issue
with the neighbors than the design of the building. Robinson asked
at this time that they use what they have, unless someone has a
better idea. There was a proposal to bring the entrance down a
little further, but they are not asking for this now.
Hunt asked what affect would going back to the former Cemetery Lane
alignment have, if the entry into town changes that alignment.
Robinson said one would be to keep the open space and go to the
original. If that is the case, then they would have to line up
their access road somewhere close to where it is now. How they
would do that, he was not sure.
Hunt said if something does happen with the entry to town; if it
is one of the main street alignments that end up flushing
through. . . . whatever you want to call it. . . . he was wondering because
the existing road is right now so close to Hwy. 82, that if
Cemetery Lane got shifted to the east, you would be looking at a
fairly long parallel road along Hwy. 82 to get to the same, more
or less, bad spot on Cemetery Lane in respect to the intersection.
He thought maybe they should wait until the alignment issue flushes
out before looking at the proposed access. He felt it would have
some benefits to wait until they know what is going on. Garton
stated the existing does cross the path. Hunt stated the proposed
does not. Robinson stated they had yield signs on both sides of
the path in the entryway, but not everyone yielded, so the Park
Department has actually put up stop signs on both sides.
Kerr asked if they were planning on eliminating the existing day-
care pick-up area. Robinson said the parking would stay the same
as it is; as far as the baby-sitting drop-off area, they were
trying to work with that and it would probably stay the same. Kerr
stated some of the existing traffic problem would remain; it would
be Parks' actual service vehicles that would have an improved
situation.
Chaikovska asked which was the ultimate design. She said it still
had a bridge and asked if it could go around the pond. She inquired
if there were geese at the pond. Robinson said they used to keep
13
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
MAY 2. 1995
geese there, and there has been a lot of vegetation that has grown
there now.
Garton asked if the L-shaped worked best for Parks and the Sharp's?
Robinson stated, it really does.
Alternative Designs 2 and 3 were explained by Robinson. Number 3
was a design by one of the neighbors, both were two-story. He said
they looked at both but there was still traffic conjestion and did
not utilize what they had. Design 4 had major traffic problems and
you could see it from the highway. Design 5, still two-stories,
they were still trying to get away from the height.
Chaikovska stated that Exhibit 6 looked like a huge wall from the
golf course and asked if partial sub-grade was out of the question.
Robinson answered Exhibit 6 was still more down in the ground,
approximately 3-4 feet, and they wanted to keep the height of the
building down as low as they could, so visually you don't see
anything but scrubs and trees.
Kerr stated we now have the Design Review Overlay Committee that
reviews monster homes and their impact, and how it affects the
neighbors - so, is this the right thing to do? He didn't have any
problems with necessarily the 9,000 sq. ft., but was troubled by
the long expanse of the wall. If that is the only way it can be
done he was for it, but with the impact of the long wall on the
'.- golfers and the neighbors, he felt troubled. As it relates to the
employee housing, he felt it was a bad precedent for the City to
say to everyone else if you are going to build a project you must
mitigate your housing for us to waive it. Robinson stated, once
again, if someone would come by and come up with some other ideas,
they were welcome.
Bob Sharp spoke and stated it was appreciated that Robinson has
worked with the neighbors and gone through so many steps with six
designs. One of his biggest concerns was to have 9,000 sq. ft. of
covered area to store many things that could actually be sold,
things that sit out year after year. He asked if the 9,000 sq. ft.
was actually necessary. He presented Bill Sharp's plan, and said
the storage shed would be closer to Hwy. 82 because of the noise
and be hidden from the golfers by the existing and proposed office.
He said the bridge was not necessary, and to keep the entrance the
same, and not have it stretched out in a big "L". He felt by
having it more condensed and all closer together, it would be more
efficient, much easier to supervise what is happening.
Robinson answered, the reason they came up with the 9,000 sq. ft.
When the City was doing their proposal with the Masterplan, they
took and measured every piece of equipment to see if they could
house it elsewhere. They came up with 7,000 sq. ft. of heated area
14
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
MAY 2. 1995
and 2,000 sq. ft. cold storage was necessary. As for the items
suggested to be sold, they will not be housed in the new facility;
it will store just all equipment, not picnic tables, etc.
Doug Roball, with Aspen Junior Golf Foundation, spoke and said that
in his experience in working with golf courses and golf equipment,
he said we are talking about several hundred thousand dollars worth
of equipment that needs to be covered. He felt the facility was
needed. As far as golfers seeing the facility, every golf course
has a storage and maintenance facility and part of a golf course
and needed.
Chaikovska asked Robinson if the plan that Bill Sharp came up with
worked for him traffic-wise, and what his thoughts were. Robinson
answered that one of the problems they had with Sharp's plan, was
getting in and out all the time and working with the traffic that
are visitors. He said, when you have 45 employees or more you have
a lot of parking, and one of the main problems they had with
Sharp's plan was the conjestion, and the flow of traffic just
didn't seem to work well.
Lamont presented a letter for the record from Aspen Snowmass Nordic
Council President, Craig C. Ward in support of the application.
(Attached in record.)
Kerr said he felt Robinson had looked at most options, but how much
did they look at the east end, between Truscott Place, the seventh
green and tenth green. He did not know how wide that area was.
Robinson stated, yes, they had looked at that a lot, where all the
dirt piles are. He said that with all that they do, they still
have to have some place to house different types of sands, soils,
and rocks. Kerr stated he was thinking long-term and that there
may come a time when Parks may be separated from golf. He said
he had looked at a Masterplan relating to Parks, and one of the
things talked about was a multi-purpose facility for ice, and
swimming. Kerr stated, what if the current ice garden became the
Parks maintenance storage place and we have already gone ahead and
built a 9,000 sq. ft. facility. Is that too much for just golf
maintenance, at that point? He said he was just trying to think
ahead.
Robinson said they have talked about the application since 1986
with those options, and they are still looking for options. He
stated the options are not there. They considered, with Bill
Sharp, putting little buildings in each little park. It is an
idea, but it is not efficient, because you have to have water and
maybe gas in each one.
Chaikovska asked how much of the facility will Parks be utilizing
and how much will the golf course be utilizing? Robinson said an
15
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
MAY 2. 1995
approximate 40/60% ratio, 60% being in the Parks Department favor.
Chaikovska asked if that was enough for the golf course?
Robinson said, it was enough for now, with a little extra room to
grow.
Kerr asked how big was the budget? Robinson said, $ 450,000 from
the Parks side; golf has put in some money. Chaikovska asked how
much he was looking for as a contribution? Robinson answered,
$30,000. He said it was a good start, the best start in ten years.
He stated they had a $50,000 mower, and two pieces of snowcats that
are $100,000-$115,000 apiece that are not adequately covered from
the sun. These are just a few pieces, he said they have probably
115 pieces of expensive equipment and without a new facility they
have to ask for more equipment. Baker stated it was important to
realize that the type of equipment that they have is not meant to
be stored outside.
Buettow stated he had gone to the site and checked it over and he
thought the driveway worked nice, the central area where they could
move their equipment around and parking seemed to work toward their
advantage. The existing entryway concerned him a lot and seemed
to need some more study; other than that, it seemed to work pretty
well.
Chaikovska said she appreciated all the effort into doing all the
alternative designs and liked the fact that they were going to
'- maintain a lower height, and she said landscaping would be
important. The road concerned her, and it would be interesting to
see the alternatives there, but otherwise, she agreed they
critically need a facility and are spending a lot of money
maintaining the equipment.
Hunt said that if the equipment layout is an example of 9,000 sq.
ft., it looked to him that they needed 9,000 sq. ft. He had no
quarrel with that at all, he just questioned how they wanted to
configure it, and if the neighbors prefer the more shallow
buildings then that was perfectly appropriate. He felt they had
done a good job in designing it and it concerned him that they had
approximatelly 10-15 vehicles that still are not undercover with
the proposal. In mitigating employee housing, he said he would
assume that they would just look at the increase of the office
space, as opposed to a 9,000 feet of storage. As far as the access
road, he felt it appropriate to use the existing access road now.
In the future, we may have to do something, if Cemetery Lane shifts
and we shall deal with that in the future.
Mooney stated he visited the site, and it doesn't take long to
realize that the complexity of what is going on out there demands
this kind of space. He felt it was the most practical, straight-
forward, and easy application of the bare necessities. He said it
16
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
MAY 2. 1995
was hard to imagine that they were dealing with 24 ft. trucks, and
Catepillar loaders, and articulated little tractors, and that type
of equipment should not be compromised. He felt they should have
all the room they need, and parking was critical. He did not feel
they could eliminate any of that, looking at the site and the
safety of the people - 45 people going in and out, he said the
other plans were not even close to the efficiency of this existing
plan. He felt Robinson should "stick to his guns" on this and get
exactly what he wants. As far as the mitigation, he did not feel
the City deserved to have any privilege in mitigating. If the
growth is there, the mitigation should be exacted.
Robinson asked if they were not going to include any more
employees, but are just making more room, do we still have to do
the mitigation for housing. Lamont answered, typically, yes.
Garton said she supported the plan, too. She liked the long shed,
she felt it was very appropriate. Like Buettow, she was concerned
about the access, but like Hunt, she felt it was probably premature
to change that access until it is seen what goes on with the
"famous entrance to Aspen". She supported mitigating the housing.
Kerr said this was one that really troubles me, because as several
people in the room know, I play a lot of golf; an excess of
probably a hundred rounds last year, and therefore, I'm all in
favor of everything we can do to make it better. There is no
.... question of support of the golfing parts. He said he was troubled
by the long expanse of the wall, but if that is the only way we can
do it, he said he would go for it. The impact of the wall upon the
golfers, especially the slicers, and upon the neighbors; he said
that was his concern. As it relates to the employee housing, he
felt it was a bad precedent for the City to say to everybody else,
you are going to build a project, you must mitigate your housing
for us to waiver, it sets a bad example.
Kerr asked Lamont, as it relates to conceptual, do we have to give
you more than feedback; do we actually have to give you a plan.
Lamont answered, you make a recommendation to Council approving
with conditions, or denying conceptual review.
MOTION
Hunt moved to recommend conceptual PUD approval of the Parks and
Golf maintenance and office expansion with conditions 1-10,
outlined in Planning Office memorandum dated 2 May, 1995. I will
so include that included with conditions shall be: 1. Detail of
building material, 2. Landscape plan, 3. a breakout of percentage
of Golf Use and Parks Use, 4. Analysis of equipment and
depreciation cost, 5. Better elevations, 6. Employees Mitigation
Plan. Mooney seconded, voting commenced, unanimous in favor,
17
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
MAY 2. 1995
motion carried.
WATER PLACE AFFORDABLE HOUSING SUBDIVISION
SPA AMENDMENT. GMOS EXEMPTION.
CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW AND SPECIAL REVIEW
Chairman Kerr opened the public hearing.
Kim Johnson, Planning Department presented for staff and introduced
the City of Aspen's representatives, Cris Caruso of City
Engineering Department, Tom Stevens of the Stevens Group, and
Gibson and Reno representing architecture. She said it was a 16
unit complex at the City Water Plant, which is known as Lot 4, City
of Aspen Thomas Property. It does have an SPA overlay on it, so
that is a blanket review on this project. It is being processed
as a Consolidated Review, which means that the commission only sees
it one time, and it goes forward to Council for their final
consideration. If either review body, commission or Council, deems
that it should be a four-step review process, at any point during
the review, they can make that determination.
Included with the Housing Project is two storage buildings on the
south side of the water plant, which is several hundred feet to the
south of the housing units. These storage buildings will be used
by the water and electrical departments for their heavy maintenance
equipment and truck storage.
The background of this project, aside from the storage issue, which
she felt did not probably need to be discussed in too much detail,
is that the City is finding it increasingly difficult to find
qualified personnel for their staffing needs and/or personnel for
emergency response or maintenance response, such as snow removel
and water leaks. Employees now are forced to commute from Glenwood
Springs, Carbondale, Rifle, etc. The response time is pretty
unresponsive.
She stated they had gotten several referral comments and the County
will also be submitting additional referral comments in a more
formal capacity, but at this point she said she did not have
anything from them. This project is being reviewed by the Joint
City and County Growth Management Commission, not from a scoring
perspective, but just from a review perspective to see how the
project qualifies under the Affordable Housing and residential
review guidelines. That will occur on May 16th, so it will be in
between P&Z review and Council review.
She introduced the information she handed to the commission, which
was a formal response from the Environmental Health Department to
18
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
MAY 2. 1995
the information on SIP Compliance from Tom Stevens. Environmental
Health stated that Stevens' letter was acceptable to them as far
as reduction of PM-I0 miles traveled and the impact to PM-I0.
Also, she said she had just received an hour prior to the meeting
by fax, a letter from Mr. Craig Angus, Ph. D., a Twin Ridge
resident. He spoke about his objections to the project. He was
concerned about the lower units, mixed traffic at the junction of
Twin Ridge Drive, Doolittle Circle and Water Plant Road; he felt
there was a safety hazard for children, pedestrians and bicyclists.
He requested considering moving the units to the top of the ridge,
improving the roads, and helping make the corner safer and more
enjoyable for all. She also stated that Cris Caruso had a draft
form of the response of Phase II Site Assessment. (All three
documents are attached in record.)
Johnson stated she had one more clarification on Page 6 of her
memorandum. She stated the consulting engineer referenced a pro-
rated cost for Castle Creek Road and it is $3,891.00 for the entire
subdivision, not per unit cost sharing amount. Under the SPA,
which is a consolidated review, she said they are also considering
subdivision; Growth Management Exemption for central public
facilities and for the housing units, 8040 Greenline Review,
Conditional Use for Housing in the Public Zone, and also in the
Public Zone we have to accommodate special reviews for parking,
open space, and the dimentional requirements.
Johnson stated that on page 16 of her memorandum it sets forth
highlights of the maj or issues that staff is dealing with in
putting together the memorandum. Doolittle Drive has a difficult
curve and they are making improvement to that road, but it is a
steep road, at 10% she believed, or just under 10%. She is hoping
to have a very complete chlorine hazard mitigation plan, reducing
the smaller amounts of chlorine on site as needed, and/or
excavation needs for the neighborhood. Information #3, regarding
toxic substances, seemed to be somewhat abated as Caruso's Phase
II Environmental Assessment seemed to indicate that PCBs have not
been reviewed on the site. Number 4, visual impacts along the top
of the hillside; specifically, heights of buildings, proximity of
buildings to the top of the slope, and the need for additional
evergreen screening along the top of the slope. She said they want
to have more detailed thought about the Park development; there is
an open space that is being proposed for the lower end of the site
and she felt it would be nice to have a better idea what type of
park development could be accommodated there and to what extent
this applicant will participate in that when the subdivision is
built. Also, she said they are seeming to get down to more final
trail design or pathways.
Johnson said she was forwarding this application with the three
Commission options: 1) Forward this project to Council as a
19
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
MAY 2. 1995
consolidated two-step review. She said she had provided 42
Conditions of Approval, some of which may be able to be changed
based on any current information; 2) Additional time has been set
aside on May 9 if not enough time to accommodate the public review
at this meeting tonight, the Commission could table after some
discussion; and 3) the Commission consider this a conceptual review
and declare that this should be full four steps.
Chairman Kerr stated that before hearing the applicant's
presentation he would like to explore the three options, because
it may affect the length and nature of the presentation if the
Commission decided that it will be a four step review.
Garton stated that in reading the packet, she had a hard time not
wanting to do a four step review because she thought it was a very
sensitive project. She felt there needed to be a lot of things
talked about in this application and she did not feel the
Commission could do service to this application and to the public
without going through the four steps. She understood wanting to
hasten it, we do need housing for the city, for sure, but she
stated that this was her feeling.
Kerr said he agreed strongly with Garton, and not only that, but
it would probably take more additional time than tonight's meeting;
whether a two or four stage process, it will take more time. He
felt very strongly that it should be a four-step review, and he
felt this was a very sensitive site and there were numerous things
to be discussed.
Kerr asked Johnson if a motion was required. She answered she had
never encountered this before. Kerr stated the Commission could
vote to require a four step review, and it seemed to him that they
may need some kind of motion.
MOTION
Garton moved to
proj ect . Hunt
carried.
require a
seconded,
four step review for the Water Place
vote was unanimous in favor, motion
Kerr asked the applicant to proceed with presentation. The
applicant asked for a quick synopsis of the four step review. Kerr
responded that the Commission looks at it conceptually and makes
suggested changes; it then goes to Council for their conceptual
review. Then it comes back again to P&Z for final approval and
review, along with a list of conditions of approval, and then goes
to Council again. The applicant inquired as to this meeting?
Kerr answered it would be part of the first conceptual review.
20
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
MAY 2. 1995
Garton stated that in her reviewing of the packet, first of all,
she is very concerned about the traffic at that area. She said the
whole intersection needs redesigning; so, the proposal is adding
to traffic and she needs to hear more about the ideas of mitigation
with that, which was never mentioned in the packet at all. The
City probably needs to kick into the mitigation in that area. She
stated there is going to be some ridgeline development, perhaps,
and that concerned her a lot. She stated the packet was complete
in some ways, but it raised a lot of flags for her that she could
not see discussing it all at this meeting.
Mooney said that from his point of view, the public process is very
necessary for him. To streamline it out of the way, and keeping
it from anybody being able to have a say or their opinion, or for
the entire community to have the time for this to settle in, is
something he felt very important for the process.
Kerr said he had stated a number of his concerns, and anytime he
gets a packet with 42 conditions of approval, it says to him that
there is a lot of work that needs to be done; not being
necessarily critical of the applicant, he felt 42 conditions says
there are a lot of issues to be resolved.
Mooney stated he was interested in some discussion of this strictly
being for City employees and not entering an open bidding process
of the housing authority, or lottery, so to speak. He could see
there was a necessity, but he liked the idea of the competition.
Tom Stevens made presentation on behalf of the City of Aspen
Engineering Department. He stated regardless whether it would be
two steps or four, he would go through everything basically on the
project, because he did not feel since it was conceptual" let's
leave something out". He wanted to get it "all out on the table"
and get more comments back from the Commission as possible.
Stevens stated the issue of the City's position, in one way it is
unique, and in the other it is not. Essentially, what we have is,
an employer proposing to build housing, on its own land, for its
own employees. That is fairly normal, and where it gets unique is,
that employer is the City. He said that brings up the whole issue
of public money, availability to the public, etc. The way Caruso
has set up the potential finance area, it would not use public
money and the units themselves would be financed by the purchasers,
and therefore, would not need to be made available to the public.
He stated this was a threshold issue with this project, the fact
that the City is producing housing for its own employees, on its
own land.
21
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
MAY 2. 1995
The process began with neighborhood meetings and two different
meetings were held. He stated they got two levels of concerns from
those meetings; one was the traffic on Doolittle Road, and one was
the visual impacts of this project on the immediate properties.
Stevens stated they have been able to incorporate, as much as
possible, those concerns into the design of the project. He stated
the two meetings shaped the architecture, where the buildings went,
and the level of the proposal for improvements to Doolittle Road.
;.......
Stevens stated that Johnson had mentioned some major issues that
planning staff had with this project. He said he thought they
really go beyond that. He stated there are threshold issues beyond
the visual aspect of the project and he felt that gets back to the
City being the developer of the project. One of the first projects
that Stevens did was for the hospital and they were in a very
similar situation as the City. They had an emergency response
personnel who, by law, needed to be within 20 minutes of the
hospital,but were living in Carbondale or Glenwood, 40 and 60
minutes away. The hospital decided to take their own problem and
solve it by constructing affordable housing on their own property.
He felt this was the same exact situation; there are emergency
response personnel, and even once you get out of emergency response
personnel, the City employs between 160 and 180 people and is one
of the biggest employers in the valley. Therefore, just by reason,
he stated they would have the greatest need for solving their own
affordable housing. Stevens said, the City has to step forward and
provide affordable housing for themselves, not only for emergency
response personnel, but just all levels of housing. The City has
had trouble attracting people to job openings because the housing
problem has not been dealt with.
Stevens stated the legal mechanism is in place to sell the lots.
He said that was one of his questjons early on, can the lots get
transferred without going to a vote; the legal mechanism is there
to accomplish that. Within the technical items that Johnson
brought up, 8040 Greenline, access, visual impacts, he said he
would get to those later.
He said this was a 16 unit project, with essentially nine units
that they are requesting a category of resident-occupied and seven
units under category 4. Stevens said, the way it works out, eight
of the units are single-family detached homes on their lot and
categorized as resident-occupancy; there is one resident-occupied
duplex unit, three category 4 duplex units, and four category 4
townhouse units.
The rational for categorizing these units into resident-occupied
is not to push to sale price; they already know who the employees
are and their kind of money. Instead, the units will be priced
consistent with the category 3, category 4 guidelines. The reason
22
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
MAY 2.. 1995
the City is persuing resident occupied, is to free up some of the
asset and income restrictions on the units.
The biggest issue with the site is the access. The other issue
with the site is the surrounding density. He stated the problem
is, virtually every project he has brought before this Commission,
Council, and the County Planning & Zoning and Council, is burdened
with the same thing. At this point and time, no one wants
affordable housing in their neighborhood. He stated at this time,
private sector and the public sector, are looking for every square
inch of ground possible for affordable housing.
The impacts that are presented by this proj ect are threefold:
visual, traffic, and on the Water Plan operation itself. In terms
of visual impact, you will be able to see these houses, he stated
he cannot tell the Commission you won't see them. He did not think
this was such a bad thing, in light of the fact, that while this
could potentially be considered a ridgeline because of the Castle
Ridge cut, which has created a ridge there, it is not a natural
ridge and it does not really define the,character of the valley.
What can be done is back the units off that cut line as far as
possible, and keep the design of the units as low as possible.
By pulling the units off of the slope, a fair amount of the
existing scrub oak in front of Lots 7,8,9 and 10 can be retained
which will help substantially in screening the units.
Traffic is one of the major things they have been wrestling with.
RFTA is about 1,000 ft. away at Castle Creek Road. One thing that
is unique about the proj ect is, there is one employer, one
location for people to come to and makes it ideal for RFTA van
service. Doolittle Road, while possibly adequate for a Water
Plant, is not adequate for a housing development and will have to
be increased substantially. The burden of the increase of
Doolittle Road will, in part, fall upon the residents, and, in
part, on the City. The platform of the road needs to be widened,
grades need to be manipulated some, as much as possible, and
drainage needs to be improved. He felt Doolittle Road could be
made to work, with the exception of one thing; the first turning
radius on the road is approximately 70 feet in diameter and code
requires it to be 100 feet. He said they could make that, but the
impacts of making that road 100 feet, are substantial. It is
recommended, therefore, the turning radius be left as is and just
improve the pavement, drainage and maintenance on that road.
Stevens stated once they actually get into the design of the
project, one of the things that they started to do from the very
beginning was rather than add plants to make this proj ect look
nice, but keep from substracting plants. To the greatest extent
possible, he said they could preserve the oak grove there, as they
were mature, and would provide some screening and quality of life
23
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
MAY 2. 1995
-.- value. Stevens felt the combination of the architecture, the
preservation of the oaks, and the introduction of new oak would be
the best solution. He stated they could do whatever the Parks
Department, the Commission and Council feels best. He did not
believe adding a row of spruce or fir along the top of the cut
slope is the answer.
He said eight of the single-family homes, and the four duplexes;
all will be serviced off the upper portion of Doolittle Drive.
They will all be serviced off of private drives that come off of
Doolittle; the drives have been sized to handle fire access and
that is why there is a 100 ft. circle cul-de-sac in the center.
He stated that represented the least amount of pavement to
accommodate fire access and turning movements at the site. On the
lower four townhomes the access has been changed, and they wanted
to align it more closely with the Twin Ridge Drive access.
Parking on the project; he said you cannot provide too much parking
functionally, but to provide too little parking is like "shooting
yourself in the foot". On the four-plex, each unit gets two spaces
per the unit and then there is a guest space assigned to each unit,
essentially, there are three spaces per unit. One of the spaces
is in a garage, one is on the surface pertaining to that, and the
other is on a remote parking site for guests coming off of the
,.-. entryway. With the single-family homes, each has a two-car garage
and two potential parking spaces behind. He said they will
.- convenent against vehicle storage there, so there will be no
motorhomes and junk-cars sitting in the driveways. Stevens stated
they ended up with an overall average of 3.6 spaces per unit.
Scott Smith presented the architecutural program giving a complete
overview
would be
exterior
colored,
minimize
photo of
of the units. He stated the construction materials that
used are log construction, a 6-8 in. diameter log on the
for durability and visability. The roofs would be a dark
heavy textured asphalt shingle that would help also
the appearance from a distance. He brought in an aerial
the site area for the Commission to view.
Stevens stated that another thing that came out of the neighborhood
meetings was the need for a park or some sort children's
playground; some land designated for use by the public. Stevens
said they have strategically located at the top of the site,
directly north of the four-plex building, an area they have
identified for future open space development. He felt that was a
good area to identify now, so that, in the future, if the
neighborhood should decide, and especially if Castle Ridge, who
would be just as much a beneficiary of this as anybody, would
decide to designate as a play area.
Lastly, Stevens stated that of the 42 conditions of approval, there
~.. 24
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
MAY 2. 1995
were only about half a dozen that needed to be talked about. The
rest of the conditions, they acknowledged they could incorporate
into the plans very easily.
Kerr asked to take public comment at this point.
Robert Gillen, a Castle Ridge resident, living right below the
proposed development, had big concerns with the project. He was
concerned about the traffic, but mainly, the four-plex. He said
there was one little lot of open space and if the four-plex was put
as proposed, it would take away the last view of the mountains, the
only open space Castle Ridge has left.
Phil Bloomwell, a resident of Twin Ridge. He had a problem with
the preference of Aspen employees; he felt their emergency response
was no greater than other businesses in town, the police and fire
departments, for example. He would like to see the power line
buried, put a playground in, the Heatherbed Trail not blocked,
safety and traffic issues addressed fully, and the issue that this
is not public money, but City of Aspen money did not sit well with
him. He felt we are all taxpayers, City of Aspen owns it, and
stated "we tell the City of Aspen what to do with our money".
Georgia Taylor, a resident of Twin Ridge, stated she was concerned
about the concept of having a playground and increasing more
children traffic when there is now too much traffic. She was
concerned about the scale and impact to the neighborhood in regard
to the construction for the next 10 to 12 years.
"-"-".---
Tom ( ? ), Castle Creek resident, asked if the fire department
looked at the access to the property. Stevens answered that prior
to this meeting there was a development review committee meeting
and the fire department recommended improvements to the grading of
pavement. The biggest concern of the fire department was that if
that road was snowed over and a car blocked the road, the fire
department, if called, would be slowed down. The fire department
recommended sprinkler systems for the units.
He felt the P&Z should consider putting a limit of no more than
2-3 years in developing the whole project and finishing it.
John Walla, resident of Twin Ridge, voiced his concerns and stated
he did not agree with Stevens' assessment of the ridgeline, he felt
it to be a natural ridgeline and the road impacts needed to be
ironed out. As for the City selling the land to people, he was not
certain he could concur personally, on that, and he said the
question of chlorine was not clear, and was concerned about the
snow removal program, and four-plexes on the project.
25
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
MAY 2. 1995
( ? ), resident of Twin Ridge, stated his main concern was the
traffic and was curious if there could be another entrance to the
proj ect on the other side of the ridge. He felt it would help
offset traffic. Stevens stated they did look into that option, but
ruled in out.
Kerr asked for any additional public comment, there was none, he
closed the public hearing.
Garton asked regarding ROs. She stated they had had work sessions
on ROs, but has never seen a final ordinance or amendment about an
RO at all. Dave Tolen answered there had been joint county and
city work sessions and they finally came to a resolution and most
of that has been incorporated into the 1995 housing guidelines
which has not been published yet. The date it is effective is May
22nd.
Chaikovska stated she would like to understand the financing of the
project. Stevens answered that there was a plan that Alpine Bank
had initiated, and the bank has a lending limit of 2 million
dollars and they are at that in their structure, so in order to get
the single-family homes going, they are using a finance plan. What
it involves is, rather than the developer finance the entire
project as one package, the lots are sold, and the homes are built
under construction loans made by the bank, to the individuals. The
bank essentially loans the purchaser of the unit the funds required
~. to build all portions of the project, including the home. The very
first draw on that is for the land, subsequent draws are for
construction. The bank administers all of the loans
simultaneously, so the developer and the contractor submit one draw
per month and get one payment per month. So, it is not the case
of 16 little different projects happening on their own schedule.
All purchasers and all financing has to be in place before the
project is begun.
Chaikovska asked if they thought they had the market for the homes.
Cris Caruso answered they have a pretty strong market.
Mooney asked if the City was putting the
collateral, or how was the loan collateralized.
in this case, I don't know.
property
Stevens,
up for
stated
Garton asked if the land was encumbered at all by the open space?
The Thomas property, long ago, was purchased by the City. Stevens
stated that was his understanding. She said it is then the City's
discretion how this land is used? Stevens said he had met with the
City attorney and it was the City's property and at their
discretion. Garton asked if there was still any debt on the
property? Stevens stated, not that he knew of.
-... 26
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
MAY 2. 1995
Mooney wanted to go back and clarify who would qualify for an RO
in Category 4. He asked are we really funding affordable housing
for people who are blue-collar, emergency response type of city
employees, police or snowplow drivers, or are we building single
family homes for people who are moving up here to take white-
collar executive positions and a lure of the City to offer this as
some kind of a bonus situation: He said that goes back to the idea
that the City controls the project, there isn't a lottery, and the
City has the ability to put their people in there. He said the
analogies really don't fit, because if we are building an
affordable housing project, he felt we need to build density here.
He felt duplexes needed to be built and we need to revisit the idea
of what categories are really going to live here. We can very
easily find out from the City, who qualifies for this, who needs
this, and what categories they qualify for. He did not feel this
was a single-family project, and if that is the case, he did not
see the four-plex on the intersection as being a practical
application. He stated up on the flat spot is where it should be
constructed and if the Commission is really doing a conceptual
analysis, that is one of the keystones for him.
Mooney felt the 82 intersection was really important, and the
phasing of construction because of the style of financing. If
there are toxic levels of chlorine 1,000 yards away from this site,
can the Commission really mitigate some kind of accident plan. He
felt the County was going to have to get involved.
.~
MOTION
Hunt moved to table the item until May 9th, and continue the public
hearing to the same date. Chaikovska seconded, vote was unanimous
in favor, motion carried.
TRUEMAN LOT SPA AMENDMENT
AND CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR GARDEN CENTER
Mary Lackner, Planning, represented for staff. She stated there
were two aspects to the application; one is a conditional use
review to put a garden center in the Truman Center, the other
request is to change the Lot 1 SPA. Due to the hour and the other
items on the agenda, staff felt it best to go ahead with the
Conditional Use Review, but the changes to the Truman SPA, move to
another agenda.
27
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
MAY 2. 1995
-'+-
MOTION
Hunt moved to consider the conditional use review on the agenda and
table action and continue the public hearing for the Truman Lot 1
SPA Amendment to June 6th. Garton seconded, vote was unanimous in
favor, motion carried.
TRUEMAN CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR GARDEN CENTER
Mary Lackner, Planning, represented for staff. She said the open
space requirements of the Truman SPA may have to be varied if the
applicant decides to go into the open courtyard area. Staff has
concerns about the very actively used open space in the summer
time. She said also, to get around the open space issue, there are
a lot of large overhangs around the building, and if they put the
use to the overhang areas, it does not come out of the open space
calculations. The staff recommends that this use for a garden
center go forward, but just be located on the overhangs of the
building. Staff does recommend approval with the listed conditions
of approval.
Philip Bloemsma, representing applicant, stated he had no
presentation. He stated he would like to see the garden center in
the common area, the brickyard. He said he could understand where
they might be encroaching on open space, but the intent of the
Garden Center is not City Market; no mulch and trees. They only
want to be able to place planters and flowers, a few flower beds
for people to purchase. Bloemsma stated there would be no cash
register or transactions taken place outside and he felt that
picnic tables and the gathering area works with the idea, and
actually, enhances it.
Garton stated she felt it would be very attractive, but as she read
through the application, she was very concerned about taking open
space away from the public. She stated it has become a public
plaza. If in some way, this could be intermingled and the public
would never be told to leave or be in the way of a sale, she said
it could happen. She said the open space at the Cantina has now
become the Cantina and the proposal was an enhancement, but she
felt that the public must feel first. it is a public space and
plants could be picked out, taken inside, and sold.
The hearing was opened for the public and Shelley ( ? ), who
would be doing all the plants and is a sales clerk from Sashae
Florists spoke and said she did the flower beds and pots at the
Cantina. She said they were not proposing to take any space away,
just a way to create an area where people could hang out. There
28
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
MAY 2. 1995
would be no bags of potting soils, no racks, shovels, etc., but
just flowers and hanging baskets all around the overhangs that will
be maintained by either herself or the maintenance crew at the
Trueman Center. There would be no selling; if there was a pot, it
would have a Sashae card on it saying if someone would like to
purchase this plant, please come into Sashae. Basically, she
stated what they were asking was to decorate the courtyard with
i terns that are for sale. She appreciated being offered the
overhangs for an area for the plants, but there was no sun there,
and it was very dark.
Garton stated again that it was an enhancement, but it is enlarging
commercial space as we realize happened at Cantina.
Chaikovska said she used the area, herself, a lot. She said it was
an area where, not only do people park their dogs, but they park
their children. She felt that people who use do use it for the
above reasons, would not be able to anymore with the proposal.
Mooney stated he was fundamentally for enhancing the Truman Plaza
if it is done to make it more comfortable as a public space, but
to extend 600 sq. ft. of retail space onto Store 205, is something
he was not in favor of at all.
Buettow said he thought the applicant's intentions were probably
good, but he felt it was a public open space.
~-,...",~
Hunt stated he had no problem with potted plants being dispursed
around the open space, but he had a real problem with the extension
of the retail activity in that open space. He mentioned that
perhaps they could accomplish that without expansion and sales into
an open space. He stated he agreed with staff, that it belongs
under the roof somewhere.
Kerr said he did not know of any prohibitions In the open space
requirements for someone putting potted plants and decorating it.
He said he was not suggesting it, but if someone put a little note
that said, landscaping provided by Sashae, for example, without any
pricing on it; in effect, the applicant would be accomplishing the
same thing. Kerr felt the applicant could accomplish the goal;
beautify the plaza area, and let it be known that Sashae provided
the beautiful flowers.
Mooney stated the building was built with overhangs and chances are
it would not have been approved if vendors were all along the
overhangs. He said that to extend the retail space now into
walkways, he was not willing to go along with it. He felt that was
growth without mitigation and against the basic underlying zoning
philosophy, and setting a serious precedent by allowing this type
of activity.
", 29
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
MAY 2. 1995
-
MOTION
Hunt moved to deny Conditional Use Review for a Garden Shop as
proposed before us this evening, basically with the recommendations
to the applicant to try to accomplish what they wanted to do in the
form of beautification of the open space. Garton seconded, vote
commenced with all unanimously for denial,
MAROON CREEK PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
STREAM MARGIN REVIEW
Mary Lackner presented on behalf of staff and the applicant, the
City of Aspen and Pitkin County, was represented by Tom Newland.
Lackner stated she had no presentation, but would make comments
after Newland presented.
Newland stated it was proposed to construct a temporary pedestrian
bridge Maroon Creek just to the north of the existing Maroon Creek
Vehicle Bridge. It will be temporary in nature and will provide
for a needed safety improvement until a new vehicular bridge, which
will include pedestrian access as well, is built. He said it was
felt the pedestrian bridge would be there between 5 and 7 years
before the new bridge got built.
The bridge is a pretty straight forward design, and based on a lot
of the bridges that are seen around Aspen. It is a 600 foot-long
bridge approximately that they plan on placing, in three sections,
on two piers coming up from the valley floor. Newland said he
noticed in the conditions of approval it is stated that staff
recommends approval if it can be found that the piers are not
located within the 100-year floodplain. He stated he took a little
closer look at that this day with the conceptual plans that he had,
and determined that the base of the foundation of the piers was
going to be between 1/2 a foot and 2-1/2 feet above the 100-year
floodplain in the area, and that is what they are committing to in
the design. Newland stated that the pier to the west is the
closest to the floodplain; it is only about 1/2 foot above the base
flood elevation, and they are willing to further enforce that
bridge there to make sure, in the unlikely event, that a 100-year
event comes down in the next 5-7 years, that that pier is
protected.
Newland handed out pictures and stated
that it was the most cost effective
improvements in, in the quickest amount
in showing the pictures,
way to get the safety
of time,
-, J.Q
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
MAY 2. 1995
Lackner stated her comments were in the memorandum (attached in
record). She said she did have additional conditions of approval
that came out after her memorandum was put out. Lackner stated one
of the issues was the visual impact or mitigation. Staff was
concerned about the overhead power lines across the bridge.
Mooney said he was in favor of this project, and excited that it
was finally being done. He was concerned about someone "joy-
riding" across the bridge. Newland stated that was a good point,
and they were planning on putting some power lights in the middle.
Mooney asked if it would be lit at night. Newland stated they were
going to provide lighting on both sides with the typical overhead
street lights. There is no lighting on it in the middle right now,
in the beginning to reduce the visual impacts, especially at night.
Hunt asked if the bridge was going to carry the power line that
presently expands the .... Newland stated it would be underneath
the deck. Hunt also asked if there were any future places to use
the bridge, 7-10 years down the line. Newland said, yes, there
were, and one of the places being discussed, was next to Tiehack.
He said this bridge could be broken down to three, two hundred foot
spans, which could be used in a variety of places within the
county.
Hunt stated it looked likely that we would lose this bridge during
the construction period. Newland said they were placing it as
~_. close to the existing bridge as they can to stay away from the site
of the new bridge, wherever that might be; they figure somewhere
downstream. They will attempt to keep that bridge up as long as
possible during construction of the new bridge, however, they
cannot commit to that happening, there may be a time frame there
where it is just impossible for CDOT to finish off the bridge
without removing that bridge first. Hunt said, that is for sure,
because it seemed to him that CDOT had almost nestled its bridge
along the existing one. Hunt asked if there had been any effort
on CDOT's part to look at using the existing bridge later as a
pedestrian bridge, but in a different location over Maroon Creek.
He said it was not impossible in this day and age. Newland stated
historically it would be a real pain to move it, but it can be
moved and would take about a five year process, but it was not
CDOT's decision. Hunt stated the benefits to the community would
be so much greater having that bridge on the correct side of the
highway, than having the highway in the existing right-of-way, more
or less. Hunt said he just wanted to have that thrown out and will
keep after it, and if it takes five years, it's time to start to
ask the right people.
Stan Clauson stated that they were really
thinking, and there has been a lot of work
thought they had been somewhat successful.
working to expand the
on these issues and he
He said Hunt's words
31
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
MAY 2. 1995
were heard and would be taken to heart. Clauson
standpoint of which bridge goes where, there are
this point.
stated, from the
no guarantees at
MOTION
Hunt moved to approve the Maroon Creek Prestrian Bridge Stream
Margin Review, subject to the conditions 1-7 on Planning Memorandum
date 2 May 1995.
Hunt asked Lackner to read off additional conditions of approval
8-11 to be included in the motion. Those conditions were:
Condition 8) It shall be a condition of approval that construction
activity, including staging, be outside the 100-year floodplain,
and that construction fencing be installed at the perimeter of the
committed construction zone; Condition 9) The applicant has agreed
to obtain an excavation permit from the City for work within the
public right-of-way; Condition 10) The development plan must
include a traffic control plan prepared by a state certified
traffic control supervisor; Condition II} Prior to the issuance of
the City right-of-way excavation permit, the applicant shall
provide a development plan that clearly shows the proposed
development plan, including and not limited to, the 100-year
floodplain, the limits of construction activity and location of
construction fencing and hay bales. That plan shall be submitted
to the Army Corp of Engineers in the Colorado Department of
Transportation.
Hunt said he included in the motion Conditions 8-11.
seconded.
Mooney
Discussion of Motion
Chaikovska thought the bridge "ugly". Clauson stated the engineers
said they could paint the bridge as easily as not. Chaikovska
said, "greatn.
Vote commenced, unanimous in favor, motion carried.
BUCKHORN LODGE REZONING AND GMQS EXEMPTION
FOR CHANGE IN USE
MOTION
Hunt moved to table the proposal to May 16, 1995, Chaikovska
seconded, vote was unanimous in favor, motion carried.
Chairman Kerr adjourned meeting at 10:00 p.m.
II
--~
--
-
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
MAY 2. 1995
Respectfully submitted:
.shOJLOll '-rIl. tCVtJt..L1lo
Sharon M. Carrillo, Deputy City Clerk
n