Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19850604 REGULAR MEETING RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING AIm ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 4. 1985 Chairman Perry Harvey called the meeting to order at 5:03 p.m. with commissioners Roger Hunt, Mari Peyton, Welton Anderson, Jasmine Tygre, Pat Fallin (arrived late) and Ramona Markalunas (arrived late) present. COMMISSIONERS I COMMENTS Tygre commented she had noticed at Sixth and Smuggler there is an extensive construction project going on. She asked if anyone knew what was being done there. None of the members knew so Tygre asked that Bill Drueding, building department, look into the matter. Pat Fallin told the commission that this was her last meeting and that she had enjoyed her 4 years with the commission. RESOLUTION AGATE COURT CONCEPTUAL POD/SUBDIVISION Harvey said the meaning was not clear in the 5th Whereas of the Resolution. He asked if it could be changed to read: "WHEREAS, the Planning Commission is concerned since the applicant has not used the flexibility offered by the PUD overlay,". Anderson added that he would I ike to see the wording in the next sentence changed to read: " and that therefore the Applicant has been unwilling to provide an adequate buffer between the new units and the highway,". Richman said if the wording is unclear it should be changed. Harvey asked , regarding Resolved 112, if a landscape plan would still have to be submitted for approval by the Parks Director. Richman said he was trying to give the applicant the opportunity here to demonstrate to the Parks Director that the 2 trees previously requested to be removed can be replanted. Harvey asked if the Parks Director was given the minutes of the meetings or the benefit of the commissions concerns regarding this matter or does he just make the decision. Richman replied when preliminary comes in the planning office will give him the direction as to what is desired by the commission. Hunt said he had problems with 114. He asked if there was going to be a cul-de-sac at the Seventh St. end of the alley. Harvey replied that the commission had wanted a cul-de-sac but the fire department has to have a straight through cut for fire access. Hunt said he was not concerned with the alley opening on to Seventh St. but against closing the alley without a cul-de-sac there I REGULAR MEETING RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING AIm ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 4. 1985 so cars, trash trucks, etc. can turn around when using the alley. Richman said that was a good point and could be added to the last sentence "if there is going to be no exit then the applicant should show a proper designed turn around at the end of a cul-de-sac". Harvey suggested, in reference to "be it Resolved that the language should be more explanatory about the fact that the commission would I ike to see the driveways reduced as long as there is adequate area to provide for service and trash areas along with parking. Anderson said he didn't think that should apply to the duplexes because of the way that auto court was designed. We are saying on one side that the applicant has to provide a cul-de-sac and on the other hand we are saying they can only have 26 feet. Hunt said he would rather have sufficient dr iveway and parking space in the back as long, as there aren't curb cuts in the front, so that they can use but not block the alley. If we limit the space to a particular footage we may not give sufficient space off of the alley and end up with cars parked in the alley. Harvey questioned be it Resolved 116, could there not be a way to provide a parking space per bedroom rather than set a standard on the number of bedrooms for the single family homes. Richman replied he didn't see how the commission could give PUD approval, the appl icant is supposed to disclose enough information about the landscaping and architecture so that there is an understanding of the project. Anderson said the applicant intends to sell those as vacant lots and let the buyer do their own design. Tygre said this is one of the areas that concerns her about granting a PUD approval to this project, because it is not a PUD. The more you go into the conditions the more you realize it isn't a PUD. Harvey said we should look at these as what we are creating, singl e family lots. Tygre responded she didn't think that was the appropriate way to look at this piece of property. It is a PUD. A big concern is the highway frontage and I don't know if that is going to work out because I haven I t seen a plan that I approve of. What the appl icant has submitted is not a PUD. Harvey said the conceptual PUD has already been approved by the commission. When there is a single family residence built they have to provide off street parking of I space per bedroom. What we are saying is to provide that parking off of the center alley court concept rather than off of the street with a curb cut. We are not in the business of monitoring single family housing. Richman said the planning office is recommending denial based on the way the project is being proposed. 2 REGULAR MEETING RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING AIm ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 4. 1985 Peyton asked if the applicant sold off the lots as single family residences do the new owners have to go by what is set forth by this commission. Harvey replied yes. Richman added that the architectural design is not being set by the commission on the single family residences. Ms. Peyton then asked how that was kept track of. Richman said it would be reviewed as the Agate Court PUD, through the building department when plans are submitted for construction. The plans will have to comply with the approved PUD. Harvey again questioned whether "be it Resolved 116" was necessary. It seems the context is covered by the building department, which is I space per bedroom of off site parking. Richman suggested changing it to read "..internal makeup of the 2 duplexes...", in that case we would get locations for the parking spaces of those units. Harvey agreed. Richman said he had received a letter from Doug Allen, the applicant, asking that the Resolution (item #8) say that the applicant be required not to condominiumize for 18 months rather than that the units will not be condominiumized. Hunt suggested changing the requirement to that of employee housing, 5 years. Fallin asked if it could read, "should they in the future be condominiumized they have to provide employee housing"? Harvey said the commission could require PUD clustering so that the applicant has to condominiumize and then they have to supply employee housing. Harvey suggested wording such as "if the applicant is willing to provide employee housing the commission is willing to consider variations in the FAR". Hunt said the rationale for not allowing condominiumzation for 5 years is because it is easier to deal with 2 owners of 2 buildings than it is with 4 owners of 2 buildings if the highway does go through there. It should be stated that this time frame is for highway planning purposes and the commission does not want to aggravate highway planning. Fallin asked what date should be used to determine the 5 years. Richman replied that it should be from the date of certificate of occupancy. Motion: Hunt moved to adopt Resolution 1185-10 with intent for the Chairman to sign the amended Resolution; Fallin seconded. Hunt, Peyton, Fallin, Markalunas and Harvey in favor; Anderson and Tygre opposed; motion carried. 3 REGULAR MEETING RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING AIm ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 4. 1985 NEW BUSINESS INDEPENDENCE BUILDING VIEW PLANE REVIEW Steve Burstein, planning office, explained the application and outlined the plans. The applicant is requesting a viewplane special review for al terations to the roof of the Independence Building. The idea is to have a stairwell that extends 6 1/2 feet above the roofline. The project is in the Wheeler viewplane. Harvey asked if the request was for fire egress as well as guest access to the roof. Burstein replied yes, the deck on the roof would go to one of the existing fire escapes. Burstein said the Engineering department has said the building can not be seen from the Wheeler view plane base line, therefore, the proposed structure would also not be visible. The Board of Adjustment will also be reviewing this next week. The planning office recommends granting approval with the condition that the Board of Adjustment grants the height variance that is requested. Harvey asked if there would be rail ings around the proposed decks. Burstein replied on the south side there would be a 4 foot railing. Motion: Hunt moved to approve the Independence Lodge view plane special review provided the applicant first demonstrates approval of their requested height variance from the Board of Adjustment, we find the main issue being the stairwell and we find that it effects no view plane and therefore has no visual impact from ground level; Peyton seconded. All in favor; motion carried. Motion: Hunt moved to have the Planning and Engineering Departments review the view plane angle and see that it is correct; Markalunas seconded. All in favor; motion carried. CITY MARKET POD AMENDMENT Steve Burstein, planning office, explained the applicants request to amend their PUD agreement for a garden display along the front of the building. Burstein reviewed the proposed plans. The concerns raised by the planning office were that the effect on 4 REGULAR MEETING RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING AIm ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 4. 1985 traffic circulation could worsen an already crowded parking lot and whether there is enough room along the front of the building to put the display. Now there are bicycle racks, a pay phone and newspaper stands in that location. The planning office recommends approval with the conditions outlined in the planning office memo dated June 4, 1985. Harvey asked if all of the space along the front of the building is now occupied; are we going to see more in the parking lot, are we going to lose the bike racks; where will the new space come from. The applicants representative said the bike rack would remain and nothing would be extended further than 4 feet from the building wall into the parking lot. Hunt voiced a problem with this being too close to the alley because it is between the entry area and the alley which is access for cars. Often times the area is stacked up with delivery trucks which creates a circulation problem. Already there is a probl em with pedestr ian access if there are del ivery trucks in the alley and a motorcycle parked at the bicycle rack. Harvey suggested conditions be added that the telephone, summer bicycle rack, newspaper rack, and trash areas still be accessable. Hunt said the requested wood box is too large and suggested it be limited to 4 feet in width and 12 feet in length. Motion: Hunt moved to approve the requested PUD amendment by city Market with the following conditions: I) The space left open for the entrance and exit doors shall be 24 feet instead of 16 feet to allow for the trash canisters; 2) Winter usage of the display area shall be confined to an area along the western facia of not more than 12 feet in length and not more than 4 feet in width so as not to interfere with snow removal; 3) In the summer a bicycle rack shall be provided; 4) Access shall be maintained to the pay phone, trash receptacle, and newspaper rack. Fallin seconded. All in favor; motion carried. 5 REGULAR MEETING RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 4. 1985 PLANNING ITEMS Asoen Area Co~rehensive Plan: Roaring Fork East Neighborhood Planning Area Glen Horn, Planning office, outlined the planning office memo dated May 28, 1985. When the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan was initiated it designated 14 neighborhood planning areas. The Roaring Fork East Neighborhood is entirely within the unincorporated portion of the county, however, it falls within the planning jurisdiction of the city and w ill probably be in the Ci ty of Aspen someday, or at least a portion of it. We think the work done by the county should be related to the City Planning and Zoning commission and think the commission should participate in the development of a plan, and the adoption of that plan. The County Planning and Zoning Commission said they wanted the city's comments prior to adoption of this plan which should be on June 28, 1985. Horn explained the background of the Roaring Fork East Neighborhood. It was a difficult plan to work with. Alot of effort was made to address the Highway 82 corridor side of Aspen. The format that was used took the 1966 Aspen Area General Plan and removed certain statements from that plan and added new statements. Consequently, to figure out what the plan is for this area you have to refer to 2 plans which is hard to understand. We feel it is important to clean up this plan. Horn said there was a problem other than the format which is a conflict between existing zoning and the plan itself. Probably the only controversial component of the plan is North Star. One of the clean up areas addressed by the county was regarding Mountain Valley, Aspen Grove, and Knollwood being designated R-30 residential. The county zoned this area R-15 which is a basic conflict. We are proposing that Mountain Valley be designated as low density residential and a range of density be permitted there between R-15 and one unit per 2 acres. Another area of clean up relates to Fritz Benedict's Stillwater Ranch parcel and Diane Smith's parcel which just had -a land use application and the county has called it a preserve. The land use map for this area designates it for cluster short term accommoda- tions which is inconsistent with the direction the county has taken. We think the reason this was done originally was in anticipation of Little Annie. We would recommend that this be 6 REGULAR MEETING RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING AIm ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 4. 1985 designated as low density cluster residential. Within that particular land use density category a range of densities between I unit per 2 acres and I unit per 4 acres would be permitted. This in fact mirrors the existing zoning so we are not proposing any rezoning of either Mountain Valley or the Benedict,Smith parcels as a result of this planned clean up. Harvey asked about the cluster residential area. Horn responded that the Difficult Campground was the boundary for that area. In spite of the cluster residential designation it is zoned AF-I which is I unit per 10 acres. The county is using a designation called Resource Conservation which would call for low density residential development at a density of approximately AF-I. Once again this is a clean up to get the plan to be compatible with the existing zoning without calling for any major rezoning. Horn said he and the county think one of the major concepts for the Roaring Fork East planning area is similar to the one on the West side of town which is a scenic foreground designation. We have designated areas that are highly visible from Highway 82 as being within a scenic foreground. The county has new performance criteria which all developments must meet if they are going to be located within this designated area. Both the 1974 plan and the plan being proposed now incorporates a scenic foreground overlay. Essentially everything within the Roaring Fork East area is within the sceni c foreground with the exception of seve r al isolated areas that are not visible. One of those areas is an area beyond North Star where there is quite a bit of single family housing. We are suggesting that this area be outside of the scenic foreground. All of Mountain Valley is within the scenic foreground, however, we don't feel that the scenic foreground rules and regulations will apply in that it is already primarily a developed area. Horn said the one area of interest that was most important to the county was what would be done with the North Star Nature Preserve and what would the land use plan show for that area. We don't think that the issue of the management of the preserve is something we should get into heav ily during a master plan process. Pitkin County has set up a group called the North Star Management Committee comprised of people from the Aspen Center for Environm- ental Studies, Pitkin County Parks Assoc., and some environmenta- lists. They are developing a long term management plan for North Star. Our basic recommendation at this time is to continue to manage North Star according to the existing practices as intended by the acquisition of the ranch. If it can be demonstrated in the 7 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 4. 1985 future through this long term management plan that other uses on North Star, more intensive use of the preserve, can be compatible with the original intent of the acquisition then the management practices should change. Markalunas asked how many units were proposed on the preserve. Horn replied around IO or II. Horn added that the big change was to back the units off of North Star and away from the road. Horn said they are showing a trail coming off of Aspen Mountain and going down Ute Ave. on their proposed plans. This trail goes through Benedict's land and right at North Star we had the option of going across North Star or bringing it back to the road. We debated extensively whether or not it would be a good idea to bring the trail along the toe of the mountains on the back side of North Star but that would take the trail into critical Elk calving areas. We are not sure whether it can be managed in such a way that the trail use can be compatible with those calving areas. The environmental experts that we have talked to say it is possible with proper management to regulate the trail use during certain times of year. Therefore, there could be a trail there that wouldn't be used during the calving season. For the time being this trail should come across the preserve parcel and we would hope to acquire a trail easement across that subdivision during the development process. We would like to see this plan adopted in the near future so when we get to the next stage of the development application we will be in a stronger position and can request a trail easement to connect to Highway 82. From there we would hope the trail could link with the Salvation Ditch trail. Horn asked the commission to go through the Proposed plan and the Goal sand Obj ectives and give their comments and additions. He said they would like to continue to recommend plan elements or components of the master plan to the City Council for their endorsement. At that point we get their comments, possibly changes or improvements on the plan, and bring it back to the commission for adoption. Harvey asked the commissioners to give their comments on the proposed goals and objectives. Harvey said he thought there should be something in the objectives for future land use about minimizing road cuts on Highway 82. Horn agreed and suggested putting it in with the State Highway 82 objectives. Harvey asked if someone was going to enforce the objectives outlined for Environmental Quality. Horn replied the way the county code works is if you are called for a review process of any kind you have to 8 REGULAR MEETING RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING AIm ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 4. 1985 conform with the general policies of the Pitkin County Land Use code. One of those general policies is that you have to comply to the greatest extent possible to adopted master plans. This allows us to call upon goals and objectives or the key to the land use map to attempt to get applicants to be as compatible as possible with the intent of the master plan. Horn said the real purpose of this pI an is to present the right entrance image to the resort. The feeling we get from the residents in the area is to preserve the area as much as possible the way it is. We would try to get people to leave as many trees as possible to preserve that character. Harvey said there isn I t much point in going through this exercise unless there is going to be a set of guidelines that are going to be applied to people. Markalunas asked what the North Star Nature Preserve is being used for now. Horn replied that it is used as a preserve for wildlife. There are guided tours that are done on the south side of the river. The public is asked not to go on the south side of the river without the assistance of a guide. Anyone can go on the north side of the river between the highway. The or iginal intent was to keep it a wildlife preserve. Harvey questioned Scenic Quality objective "CR. Horn replied that the specific incentives had been deleted at the advice of the County Attorney and several other local attorneys. Harvey said if we want to develop a trail there maybe you could require a trail easement and put in huge setbacks where it is appropriate. How can we enforce these objectives? Horn said they are considering the 200 foot setback policy which applies currently to Highway 82 downvalley of Aspen. We will have to go out and see what would fall inside that setback. Horn said they have imposed, in January, a moratorium on all development in the AF-2 zone and developed a scenic foreground special review process which is a I step special review that everything in the scenic foreground has to go through. Tygre said she thought the intent of the neighborhood, to keep things as they are, should be incorporated in the plan. Horn suggested redoing the objective on land use to reflect to a greater extent the neighborhood desires. Motion: Hunt moved to direct the planning office to prepare a resolution for future consideration recommending the Roaring Fork East Neighborhood Master Plan to the City Council for their endorsement; 9 REGULAR MEETING RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING AIm ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 4. 1985 Markalunas seconded. All in favor; motion carried. ASPEN AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: OPEN SPACEITRAILS/RECREATION ELEMENT Tom Baker, planner, reviewed concept drawings to see how development of major open space parcels in the Aspen area fit into the Open Space/Trails/Recreation element of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Iselin Park and its proposed expansion was discussed and reviewed on the proposed drawings. A new parking area was outlined which would require a new access road. Mul ti-use/Baseball fields were also discussed. Baker reviewed the Marolt-Thomas park on 2 different drawings because of the nature of the Highway. The plan is to break up the southern portion of the parcel, the rail road bed. Irrigation ditches will be relocated and trees planted on each side. This is being done to break the park into large open spaces that could be used for a variety of activities. There would be no recreational hardware on the site but if large tournaments came in the sites are large enough to accommodate practices. This would alleviate the pressure on other local parks. The community gardens would remain intact. There are also plans to increase the T on Hole IS at the golf course approximately 30 yards. A pavillion and its location was also reviewed. Baker outlined the trail access plans for the Koch Lumber parcel. A voll eyball court has been added to the parcel. There is al so potential trail head parking proposed. The Molly Gibson parcel was reviewed. The parcel is a 9 acre site but the majority of it is unusable. It was decided to make this an open space area, rather than a ball field area, that would allow for a variety of activities. Harvey said he would like to see something like Herron Park with outdoor grills and a kids recreation area there. To make something like that attractive you have to have water on the site. Baker replied there was water on the site. Glenn Horn, planner, said this area is where the Salvage Ditch trail, discussed with the Roaring Fork East Neighborhood plan proposal, is located. Harvey said this area should be a high priority because the population is already there. The Rio Grande parcel was reviewed. It is one of the areas where there is an overlap between land use, transportation, and open space. It is last on the priority list for drawings because it is the most volatile. We know we would like to keep the bottom 10 REGULAR MEETING RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING AIm ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 4. 1985 portion (the river portion) and as much of the playing field area as possible for open space for recreation. ,';.;- Baker said he had reviewed the goals and objectives from 1984 that the commi ssion recommended to City Council. One of the objectives was to maintain land use regulations which insure that growth is concentrated in Aspen and Snowmass as 2 defined commun- ities separated by open space and agricultural land. We have 2 competing interests for monies for open space. We have land use growth management tools and recreational opportunities. We became aware that we had almost ignored the recreational opportunities. We are recommending a shift in the short term priorities and focus on the recreational opportunities, leaving an emergency fund for land use and growth management. Baker said they, the planning office, wants to give Council priorities and a list of options for financing. Harvey said he thought trail maintenance should be done by the Parks department. They should come up with the standards, the costs and prioritizing what areas are in the worst repair. The commission could recommend sketch planed proposals for the areas with a list of uses. That should then go to the Parks department for costing. The commission could also rank the urgency of each. Baker said what he was asking at this meeting is whether the commission agrees with the way things are proceeding and whether he should proceed. At the next meeting we can look at trails and open space plans. Harvey said he would like to have cost estimates, options, and priority lists to give to Council. Maybe we can give Council something that is a program geared to their financial present and future. Baker said Jim Holland could probably give a broad cost estimate. He added that it is very hard to get a handle on what is going to be required with trail maintenance but I will get ranges of cost from Jim Holland. The meeting was adjourned at 7:25 p.m. c;(~, uJ~Lt Kim Wilhoit, Deputy City Clerk II